Johannis10

If it meant that, or Lab finds were counted separately, the comments here would be mostly full of enthusiasm about that decision. But most here are very upset about the GS decision, because it means something else. GS knows what most customers want, but unfortunately they sometimes have a different focus than customer friendliness in their decisions.

@Urlauber_Klaus Antwort auf beide Fragen: Du darfst das, so oft du willst. Du kannst dazu eine Notiz (Note) beim jeweiligen Cache loggen. Wünsche einen schönen Urlaub. Grüßle Johannis10

Möglich, es scheint dann aber noch andere Fehler zu geben, welche durch einen neuen PM-Log nicht korrigiert werden. Der Berechnungsfehler ist mir auch schon bei https://coord.info/GCA222E aufgefallen, als er Anfangs noch Funde im einstelligen Bereich hatte und der Fehler offensichtlich war. Er ging auch nach mehreren neuen PM-Logs nicht weg. Nur wurde der prozentuale Fehler gegenüber der korrekten Berechnung immer weniger mit zunehmender Anzahl der PM-Logs. Inzwischen ist die Loganzahl so groß, dass der Fehler, sollte er noch da sein, nicht mehr auffällt. Grüßle Johannis10

@nabane Super! Könntest du auch mein Listing aufrufen und heilen? https://coord.info/GC9F8ZF Bei 5 Funden und 5 FPs wird da schon seit vielen Wochen 80% angezeigt. Ist nicht schlimm, aber wenn du's richten kannst, besten Dank schonmal. Grüßle Johannis10

No. It would be clearer if in addition the message in the app said somthing like:

The reason is probably the use of the GS APP, which is not suitable for this purpose. Workaround for the BM: Visit website or use another app. Greetings Johannis10

Kannst ja mal den Support von gc-apps fragen. Vielleicht pflegen die dir das ja ein, oder es geht schon und man muss nur wissen wie. Hatte auch mal eine Frage an den Support gestellt, weil ich den Cecker in Englisch haben wollte. Das ging trotz Englischer Spracheinstellung nicht und auch in der Beschreibung habe ich nichts gefunden. Doch der Support konnte mir weiterhelfen. Grüßle Johannis10

A few friends are playing a board game together. At some point, the game leader doesn't feel like playing anymore. The others try to convince him to at least continue playing for their sake or to compensate him financially. But he refuses. When they suggest to continue playing the game without him and to look for a new game leader, he refuses to allow this and throws the board game over.

This is not a law of nature. GS can allow this, if they don't want to annoy their customers unnecessarily. If GS no longer wants to play along, it would be appropriate if GS at least did not prevent the others from doing so.

Page 1: @Geocaching HQAnyone can have a strange idea but the smart ones listen to good advice.

I have not criticized the guidelines here, but the way reviewers sometimes unfortunately deal with them, as can be seen in the example: Countless caches before and after were published in a comparable environment and I also see no contradiction to the published guidelines. If a cacher then relies on it, and he then such demoralisirenden consequences must bear, I find that very sad. Nobody has in this case any advantages. There are only disadvantages for all. Nice that many owners have never experienced such and similar things. Unfortunately, I know several owners who can not say that about themselves and the more elaborate the thwarted caches or the events were, the more annoying the experience. Some of my adopted caches also built from an owner who was alienated by GS... In my opinion, just because a service is performed on a voluntary basis or free service, it still matters how well or poorly it is done. GS does many things well, thank you for that. But there is still much to improve. My caches also cost nothing for the visitors, nevertheless I try to create appealing caches. If then a stage flops I am also happy about honest feedback and do not simply delete constructive criticism as it is unfortunately sometimes done here... +1

For me, there are several reasons. Here is just one example: https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/371424-richtlinien-zum-verstecken/&do=findComment&comment=5978304 Since the text is unfortunately not in English, here is a certainly not perfect translation, but hopefully the content is still understandable: GC94ZDP was a very elaborate and lovingly built cache, with hardware and software. A great weather protected location was found with permission from the property owner. However, the cache was not published because the reviewers interpreted it did not meet the guidelines as it was on company property. "Into a business go" have the local Reviewer there probably so extended that neither on, nor at firm premises a Cache may be placed. The cache had nothing to do with the company, and you also have no contact with the people working there. The company premises restriction is not in the guidelines. Only that I am not allowed to enter any business. The cache location is a 24/7 freely accessible outdoor area with log cabins to look at. The wiederrum of course the company wants to sell. But I do not go into any business in my opinion. The reviewers saw it differently and since then there is again a disappointed cacher more, which has finally stamped the project, which has cost him a lot of time, money and nerves. Summary: To make other cachers happy I like to invest time and money. However, I hope that you can understand, that I would not like to support a company additionally through a premium membership, which destroys the commitment and invested money of cachers in this for me very unpleasant way.

Just one example: I know cachers whose caches have more than 10000 FPs. But I don't know a single one who has invested for that less than a lifetime PM membership would cost...

Had once years ago at one of my mysteries the deposited final coordinates changed by a few meters. This went without a problem even without a reviewer. However, a coordinate update log was automatically generated which have betrayed the whole watchlist the final coordinates. There are mysteries where this is not good... No idea if this has been improved by GS in the meantime.

if this is your general opinion about BMs I would recommend to click into the BM profiles here. Maybe then you will notice something...

Workaround: Use the "Sent E-Mail" function instead. There is no such restriction.

Jepp und vorne noch ein "v" verschlampert, falls jemand schon am verbessern sein sollte...

@herg78 Für mich sind derzeit solche Fehler reproduzierbar. Anbei ein Screenshot. Bei meinen Fällen gibt es tatsächlich jeweils einen Abstandskonflikt bezogen auf 161m, allerdings ist die angezeigte Meterzahl falsch und vermutlich ein Bug. Wenn man Berücksichtigt, dass die 523 m wohl 161 m entsprechen sollen, kann man anhand der fehlerhaften Abstands-Angabe den tatsächlichen Abstand ausrechnen da die prozentualen Zusammenhänge zu stimmen scheinen. Das geht natürlich nur, falls die Abstands-Angaben wie in meinem Fall angezeigt werden... Grüßle Johannis10

Several things have come together here. - No "great" unreflectively applied algorithm => no archiving - no strange DNF's => no archiving and I agree: an active owner => no archiving In my opinion, it is a pity that some caches, which block space for hopefully better new caches and are in poor condition, are "kept alive" for years with photo logs and other completely intact ones, like this one, which are unlikely to be published again, go into the archive.

If one of my remote caches receives a dubious DNF I write to the author. If I don't get any feedback within a week or the feedback shows, that the search was not done at the right place, then I know what I'm doing: Strange algorithms are sometimes answered by me with equally strange reactions...

Be glad that this year they are especially friendly Yearofthehide / irony off

https://coord.info/GC123EA This beautiful climbing cache also fell victim to the "great" GC algorithm. Of the last 6 DNF loggers at least 4 were certainly not where the Cache is hidden, according to the spoiler image and the photo gallery. The remaining two were most likely not there either. Sad...

+1

Das klingt doch schonmal sehr gut. Wünsche euch viel Erfolg. Vielleicht klappt ja schon der erste Versuch. Zum Glück legen nicht alle Reviewer die Regeln so seltsam aus, wie in meinem Beispiel. Sollte es doch Probleme geben, darfst du dich gerne melden. Grüßle Johannis10

Meine Meinung: Hab' nichts gegen solche Caches, wenn das im Vorfeld ersichtlich ist, dass es ein kommerzieller Cache ist. Aber das ist ein anderes Thema.. +1 Das Traurige bei solchen Entscheidungen ist, dass niemand einen Vorteil daraus zieht. Es ist zum Nachteil für den Cacheowner, aber auch für Cacher und GS selbst.Habe durchaus Verständnis, dass nicht alles in den Richtlinien perfekt geregelt ist. Was aber in der Praxis teilweise damit gemacht wird, wie bei obigem Beispiel, ist sehr schlecht. Da geht es nicht um den eigentlichen und verständlichen Sinn der Regel (keine nervige Schleichwerbung) sondern um... zum Nachteil aller.