pppingme

This doesn't work on some of the 200's.

The official statement WAS made before thanksgiving, promising a fix the Monday or Tuesday of the following week. THAT WAS A MONTH AGO. Since then, they are clearly ignoring the problem with no further statement on it.

This isn't a newb question, don't feel bad. People have been asking for keyword searches to be returned in order of distance as long as I can remember. Sadly, no one seems to be listening. Why I would want pages of results that aren't even in my country, and the caches I do want are buried several pages deep is beyond me.

Most people think one of the main perks to being a PM is the PQ's (pocket queries). If you were to pull PQ's, I'd bet they'd loose better than 95% of PM's. I don't think your going to find very many people to say they are a PM just so they can get the extra caches, or just about any other PM feature, PQ's are the driving factor to PM's.

Three ways: To get a list of unfound caches, create a PQ and check home coordinates (don't also select a state) and check the "Have not been found". Now preview To get a list of recently placed, create a PQ and check home coordinates (don't also select a state) and select the "placed during" and choose either last week or last month. Now preview. If your not a PM, go to hide/seek then select your state, and go to the last page.

There is a perception that they are higher quality. For at least one hider in my area that had about 100 hides, I would say this is very true (he had about 15 to 20 PM caches). These all were well above average for cache quality. There are a few other hiders that flag their caches PM when they've put more work than average into them, and most of the time that shows, so yes, in some cases they can be higher quality. Now having said that, I think these are the exceptions. Overall I don't think its true that PM caches are higher quality.

The game is in transition OR the site who thinks they control the game? The reality is there are more users asking for virtuals than users asking for virtuals to go away. IF it were the game in transition, then the site should respond to user requests here to restore virtuals. Right now its the site that wants to force their view of how the game should be played. I guess as long as Jeremy is still making a buck, there really isn't much concern about what the users want.

Based on what I'm seeing, no one is "seeking" any of the waymarks in my area. No one but a few out of towner's is "sharing" things about the area.

Here's some real stats. After much effort (because the site is a pain to navigate) I found the dozen closest waymarks to me. After I eliminated stuff like McDonalds and other pointless items, it left me with about a dozen items that would be substantial enough to have been a virtual on the gc site. Out of the dozen, NONE had visits, and all but two were placed by out of towners. There was NO local interaction at all.

Not that I want virtual caches to return, but based on the timing it does appear that Waymarking was a response to those that opposed the end of the virtual cache. Or an attempt to create a market for their new idea, which from all appearances failed.

I've noticed quite a few times recently that the last visit date on peoples profile page is not accurate. For example: http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=2b...fe-0af17b8b5618 Shows Nov 30, but I know for a fact that he's logged in and found and logged caches at least twice since then, as you can see here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=Lost+Mercy I've seen this several times recently, and just assumed that the user was post dating logs or something, but in this example I know for sure that isn't the case and the user has been on the site since the date shown.

By the time the last one fills up, there likely will have been enough older caches archived that you can expand all the date ranges and leave the last one more room. My experience has been that the older PQ's are pretty stable (don't loose a lot to archiving), its the newest two or three that tend to have the most caches archived. I currently have 9 PQ's to cover a circle close to me.

None, some day soon I'll be able to say "I've found all caches within 100 miles of me".

The best way to do this currently is by date. Figure out how big of a circle you want, lets say 50 miles for an example and there are just over 2000 caches. Now set up your PQ's by placed date and the radius to 50 miles so each PQ returns just under 500 results. So you might have this (example only): PQ1 Jan 2000 to June 2003 = 490 caches PQ2 July 2003 to Sept 2005 = 485 caches PQ3 Oct 2005 to Aug 2006 = 495 caches PQ4 Sept 2006 to Nov 2008 = 490 caches PQ5 Dec 2008 to Dec 2009 = 100 caches Then you can just run those on a regular basis. The only adjustment you ever have to make is to the last PQ, and create a new PQ when the last one fills up. With the "circle" method you describe, you'd have to be constantly adjusting all the PQ's as new ones are created, this way you only have to maintain and adjust the last one.

Since you post a lot of negative responses and tend to be down on everyone, I guess I can see why you would want this.

I reported this well over 2 years ago and it still isn't fixed. Here is a quick and easy work around: Create the PQ with all the options you want, including limiting by state, and everything else, BUT, select something bogus for your center point, it can be a zip code, bogus coordinates, doesn't matter, just anything except home coordinates. Save it. Preview it to make sure you get some kind of results. Now go back and select home coordinates and save. Preview. Now its safe to schedule or whatever you want.

There are several faults with this idea. 1 - MAC addresses don't mean anything past the first router and aren't transmitted past that unless some javascript or something attempts to capture it and transmit it as part of the data 2 - MAC addresses can easily be faked 3 - MAC addresses don't get transmitted through a proxy server 4 - There is no registry or tracking for MAC addresses, no ownership databases, knowing it still doesn't get you any closer to the user unless you have previous traffic, and since they are so easy to fake, you still can't prove thats the user 5 - There is no validation for MAC addresses, so even if you found the equipment, you still couldn't prove that equipment generated the traffic (again, can easily be faked) 6 - I can pull up in the parking lot of my library and wifi on with no validation (prove I was here?), so what if the library tracked the traffic, there is no way to link it to me 7 - See #6 for any unprotected or public wifi 8 - Your note about proxies keeping logs, thats a specific feature of most anonymous proxies (not logging), and even if they did, its rare that a MAC address is included 9 - There are at least two popular alternatives to conventional proxy servers, neither of which uses or transmits MAC addresses, and are impossible to detect, even if your looking for all the tell-tale signs of a proxy server Mac addresses are for all purposes meaningless as a means of authentication (proving a user). 1 - I'm not one hundred percent sure about that but even so, it means that router can find the person. 2 - I know they can be faked I said that. 3 - I know that, but the IP does. 4-7 The point is not "We're saved because of MAC". It's "it's still not safe because of the idiots wouldn't even know about IPs" 8 - Actually, you're wrong. 9 - .... 1 - The "first" router is probably being run by someone that doesn't even know (think home users) and very few routers track MAC to IP for more than a few minutes and rarely log that info 3 - There is no guarantee of that nor is it required by protocol, and in fact an "anonymous proxy" will strip IP. 8 - Years of being a network admin and designer and holding one of the highest Cisco certs, Redhat cert, and for kicks even a bunch of papers from Microsoft as well as having contributed to squid and having more implementations of it than I can count guarantee's me otherwise

There are several faults with this idea. 1 - MAC addresses don't mean anything past the first router and aren't transmitted past that unless some javascript or something attempts to capture it and transmit it as part of the data 2 - MAC addresses can easily be faked 3 - MAC addresses don't get transmitted through a proxy server 4 - There is no registry or tracking for MAC addresses, no ownership databases, knowing it still doesn't get you any closer to the user unless you have previous traffic, and since they are so easy to fake, you still can't prove thats the user 5 - There is no validation for MAC addresses, so even if you found the equipment, you still couldn't prove that equipment generated the traffic (again, can easily be faked) 6 - I can pull up in the parking lot of my library and wifi on with no validation (prove I was here?), so what if the library tracked the traffic, there is no way to link it to me 7 - See #6 for any unprotected or public wifi 8 - Your note about proxies keeping logs, thats a specific feature of most anonymous proxies (not logging), and even if they did, its rare that a MAC address is included 9 - There are at least two popular alternatives to conventional proxy servers, neither of which uses or transmits MAC addresses, and are impossible to detect, even if your looking for all the tell-tale signs of a proxy server Mac addresses are for all purposes meaningless as a means of authentication (proving a user).

Ever heard of an anonymous proxy? Thats only one of at least three ways to hide your IP.

Are you using "home coordinates" or keying coordinates into the PQ?

No, the "sport" is however people wish to play it. Its the site thats becoming an elitists. If people would ban together to put a stop to these kind of actions they would stop, but it would take a lot of people agreeing to pull their PM's at the same time. A couple people doing it won't work.

Maybe you don't realize this, but all caps on the internet is considered yelling and it typically rude. You seem to do this a lot. Because people like you don't seem to get it, even though its been pointed out over and over and over. I've documented this issue in the forums (39 PQ's) BEFORE the myfinds PQ was even an option. Capping is also a way to emphasize a phrase or word. Its only considered "yelling and rude" by someone that does their entire post in caps or severely overuses it. Study up on internet etiquette. I see that you have your personal stats on your profile page, updated 11-14-2008. People typically use their "All Finds" PQ to generate that. Are you telling us that you do that manually? How did you generate those stats if you don't want or don't use your "All Finds" PQ? Is it so hard to download an individual gpx file after logging a cache? Who even says I'm excluding finds in my PQ's (for the curious, this isn't how I do it)? There are lots of ways to get this data without using the archaic, fixed, locked down limited all finds PQ.

OK, I'll bite. Why do you need 40 pocket queries? What in heck are you doing with all of the data? You can create 40 PQ's. Your "All Finds" PQ is a query you can create and is classified as the 40th query. I agree with 9Key though. I don't want, nor do I use my "all finds" pq, and this bug was there BEFORE THE ALL FINDS PQ EXISTED. The debate as to if 40 PQ's is enough I'll reserve for another thread, and yes, I've commented in those threads in the past.

This isn't a bug There are many who would disagree This is an issue with rules and policies, the site follows as such. A bug is something that affects functionality, such as not being able to create a PQ, such as not allowing a PQ to be scheduled because the site can't count to 5, such as returning ZERO results in a PQ, when there are caches that meet the criteria, such as not being able to go to the next page or previous page of a listing of caches, such as the site returning random useless errors. Last I checked, having two finds logged to a cache doesn't affect or break the site. As a side issue, I don't agree with a hard coded limitation, there are sometimes valid reasons to log 2 finds. If a cache owner doesn't like that someone has logged two finds, he/she is free to delete one of the logs.

This isn't a bug