pppingme

This is a known issue with the current version of Google Earth... Search around on the threads a bit and you'll find the answer. Basicly its a gpsbable/dll issue. Google Earth packaged the wrong dll. The basic fix is to grab the current version of gpsbable and manually copy the .exe and a dll file (I can't remember off the top of my head which one) to the google earth directory, then all works fine.

Lets see... Account created 3 days AFTER this thread was started, this users first post, and user has no other activity (no found caches or anything)... Gee, what should I think of this posting... If your trying to gain credit with the group, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it...

Are you in California? Is it showing your moving West?? Thats not good, hope you have your life jacket ready... Seriously though, you said its on your desk, that probably means your not getting a good view of the sat's. As others have stated, because the sat's are constantly moving, and your recomputing your position based on that, some movement is normal, and its probably worse because your inside, and aren't getting "good geometry" with the sat's. Ideally you should have sat's on different sides of you, but if your inside, they are probably all on one side (your near an east window, so most of the sat's you see are east of you). This makes for worse accuracy than normal

Without knowing anything else about your problem, my guess would be a cookie problem. What happens if you click on the "My Account" link on the left side of the page? Try deleting cookies related to this site.

This would be normal... Any PQ that has run in the last 24 hours will remain on your list until the 24 hours has passed, no matter what you do or how you delete it. The line through it indicates it will disappear after that 24 hour window is up.

No, this isn't "logic"... GC does have at least TWO web servers, and the underlying structure is unknown (does each web server have access to its own sql server, which are then replicated?) So, just cause one user is fine and another is broken absolutely does NOT mean its a user (isp, etc) issue, it could VERY WELL still be an issue on the GC side. And with the number of complaints, it HAS to be a GC issue...

Although "Scraping" is typically done in an automated (robot) fashion, the word scraping strictly means (in the web world) mass collection of data by visiting multiple related pages (ie, clicking next, collecting data, clicking next, etc) I also think the website would choke up before I could do this for all the different people I may cache with... But thats a separate thread...

I did try to get an answer about this directly from them about two or three months ago... No Reply... Plus I've posted this same thing here in the forums before, which we all know that Jeremy and others follow (at least until recently, they've been pretty quiet recently) with no response from them. Actually, this is also a grey area (the thing that initially made me want to contact gc for an "official" statement of their feelings. PM's and non-PM's (regular users with an account, but not paying) are forced to agree to the same statement. So, no where does it say that a licensee is a PM, and since same agreement is forced onto both PM and non-PM, it could be inferred that licensee is anyone with an account. Also, looking at this how do you address husband/wife parent/children, or other combinations of teams where only one is a PM, and the others just want to track their logging separately? Can my wife (who's not a PM) touch my gps receiver since I loaded it up with a PQ generated under my PM account?? Its been brought up before (here in forums and privately) that the data is NOT an "original work" of gc (its the original work of the cache owner, and his/her data as such). GC is only reporting/repeating the data as a service to users. Also no where does GC request/inform the cache owner that they are turning over rights of the "original work" to GC. GC has never responded to this (in forums or privately). All of this means that GC has no rights to limit the distribution of the data (now any proprietary or anything else that they may add to the data they may have a legal right to limit, but PQ's just don't consist of any data not originated by the cache owner, or cache seekers, which again, seeker logs are "original works" of the seekers, not GC).

That sounds like data scraping to me, which is clearly a TOU violation.. Mass/Bulk collection by visiting lots of individual pages... Just think if someone has over 1000 finds, each page shows 20, thats more than 50 pages that you have to visit, then check, then download... Now repeat for two or three friends that are going hunting with you... and were complaining the site is slow now??? imagine a couple hundred people doing this on friday night so they can get ready for the weekend... Your asking me to scrape a lot of pages...

For a lot of the smaller states thats true, but I think thats just a fluke of timing.. look at the state listing for California... There are 5 digit caches that don't seem to be affected.

About 1/2 the caches published today are doing this... The more I'm looking, the more I see it.

I'm not saying that this outside consultant has or hasn't had time to do anything, my point was that gc finally acknowledged having a problem. I agree, it would take more than three weeks to evaluate, design and implement a solution. As far as not seeing problems?? Did you not use the site yesterday night?? Although it worked and I didn't get any "server busy errors", it was about as slow as could be, to the point I would say is practically unusable. It was slow throughout the day yesterday, too.

Can't share with "Unlicensed", but no restrictions against sharing with other licensed users... But this still leaves the question of gc having the legal right to even limit the data to start with as it is NOT their data to license or distribute, it belongs to the owners of the cache, not gc.

Problem is its not unusual for a cache to get more than 5 logs in a weekend, and some people don't pull their PQ's every day. I've seen caches (not events, where the problem is worse) get more than a dozen hits in a day, so unless you were alert to this and grabbed the individual .gpx off the cache page (which still limits to 20 logs) you have a very high potential to miss logs. This would be a real hit and miss.

If you're going to recommend violations of the site's terms of use, perhaps you might do so in a place other than the Geocaching.com website forum? Thanks. How is this a violation?? Please explain... This issue (I assume your talking about the "sharing" of PQ's) has come up before and it has been shown that it is NOT a violation among premium members with the current wording..

Do this: Turn unit off Put your hand over the top part (to block it from the satellites) Turn unit on Keep covered until you see a page that asks about 4 questions. (can take about a minute) High lite (don't select) "Restart Search" IF the date is wrong, choose that option. IF the date is right, choose "New Location", then choose Automatic. Leave in area with open sky view for at least 5 minutes. If the above doesn't work, repeat and choose "Restart Search"

Sluggish and non-responsive servers have been well documented here for quite a while (months and months). You go ahead and give gc that warm fuzzy problem that nothing is wrong and they will not fix it... Why people continue to defend these problems is beyond my comprehension of reasonable understanding. These aren't one or two issues, these are ONGOING issues. Even Jeremy finally admitted to problems here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=150414

This is a known issue, I've seen it documented since at least January of 2005... The apparent cause is that they seem to run multiple databases and everything hasn't replicated out yet. Whatever they are doing for replication is apparently either buggy or not running. I've never seen a clear cut answer to this problem, BUT, multiple database issues and replication issues seem to pop up all the time. GC needs to figure out their database replication problems, as it seems to be a root of many problems reported here.

Here is a workaround (assumes you run gsak, others don't have to)... Have everyone give you their "MyFinds" query (either from here or from a gsak filter of their data). In GSAK: Clear all userflags Import everyones "MyFinds" query (as long as you have your userID set correctly it won't flag their finds as your finds) Now filter on whats NOT checked. There ya go...

Its YOUR kind of attitude why this site performs like it does. They see this "so what" type of attitude and know that they can get by with running it like this.

I know as long as people keep making excuses and not holding others accountable, then those others will think that they are doing all they have to in order to keep customers happy. I also know that if I were paying a group $2.1 million per year to run a web site and it ran like this one, that I wouldn't be too happy. And I know that from a business perspective, anyone would agree that a site that performs like this is not worth paying $2.1 million per year. So yes, if want to look at it like that then I probably do know a lot. Next?

People... You need to QUIT making excuses and hold the site owners accountable. As long as they keep seeing excuses here, they know that they can get by with treating the site like this. Here are some facts (and estimates): I estimate (they don't seem to want to publish the numbers, hoping that you won't figure this out on your own) that there are between 100,000 and 150,000 premium members. I can PROVE that there are at least 60,000 premium members. 150,000 times $3/month equals $450,000/month (thats $5.4 million/year) 60,000 times $3/month equals $180,000/month (thats over $2.1 million/year) Now even going with the lower number, there is NO reason that this site can't be run correctly. Either someone is really padding their pockets and doesn't really care about the site, OR, they are blowing money on things that just don't matter and that no one is using (Waymarking comes to mind, how many people do you know that would pay $3/month for that site??). Even with blowing money on things that don't matter, there is still NO reason that a stable site shouldn't be able to run for $180,000 per month. With these kind of revenues, and what should be low expenses, there is NO reason that this shouldn't be one of the best performing sites out there. Even worst case (before salaries, I'll let the reader decide whats appropriate there, just remember, the numbers above are monthly, not yearly) this site should not cost more than $10,000-$15,000/month to run. That assumes bad (high priced) leases on hardware, highest co-loc pricing, and bandwidth. As long as people keep making excuses and making it sound like this is only a hobby board, thats how they are going to treat it.

Palm has a unit for < $100 new at any office store... cheaper online... That aside, the main programs out there are either for units running palmOS OR PocketPC's OS... If the unit your looking at runs one of those, then your OK, but for $20/new I'm doubting it.... Now, if the unit has a built in web browser (that can view html files), then you can still convert the .gpx file to html files (lots of programs do this). OR you can just create text files if the unit can do that...

These options are "AND"... So checking the I Haven't Found should never return anything thats been found.. My thought would be that (its been stated before, don't know if its still true) that the PQ's run off a backup of the main database and if the caches were very recently found, that may not be reflected in the backup database. Remember here about two or three months ago that PQ's weren't returning new caches?? Same type of problem.

If its working fine, then can you explain why selecting multiple attributes would return MORE than selecting NO attributes?? In any case, selecting NO attributes should return the maximum number of caches, however, selecting multiple attributes (setting aside the OR vs AND argument) should always return fewer (unless all the caches just happen to have the selected attributes, unlikely, but still would never return more).