Hoppingcrow

Yes, thanks! We're getting on that one. Uh...I seem to have moved to Idaho without my knowledge. I just posted a note to a TB page and it shows my location in the wrong state.

The generator for new PQs froze at some point in the last couple of hours. I have restarted it and you should be getting those PQs soon. Given that PQ generation starts at midnight and DST goes into effect at 2am, DST should play no part in the generation of PQs. Thank you! Just that fast, it popped through.

Experiencing the same issue here. Did DST stimulate a glitch in the system?

Four caches came out within one of my notification areas this morning. I did not receive notifications for any of them. Ironically, the cache owners didn't receive notifications either...of their own caches being published! I have notifications set up around several different "core areas" and have been receiving notifications from them for several years. Since the site upgrade, I have only received two or three notifications from the dozen or so new caches within those areas. Yep, I think something's borked.

It does seem a bit closer together like you see it. I would rather have the 0.7 than the 1.5 any day. I still dont like the excessive width but I can live with that now that the line spacing is fixed. Please consider making the logs any color but white. It blends in with the cache page and is still too much whiteness. Thank you. Although the line spacing is tighter, it's a vast improvement on the previous version. That said, I can see where the present 0.7 might be an issue for people with poor vision. Is there some particular reason that it can't be restored to the 1.0 we were accustomed to seeing?

After all the grumbling, I'd like to express my thanks to GC.com for listening to its patrons with regard to the white space issue. The new line spacing is a vast improvement!

When they localize the web site the Klingon language has very long numbers so they need the space. Qa tlho'! Will translate numbers henceforth.

Just a sidebar, here: At least twice now, I've clicked the "Go" box following the page-spanning tracking code box at the bottom of the page when logging a TB, passing right over the "Submit" button. The long box draws the eye, misleading the fingers. It's counter-intuitive. Why do we need a full sixty-character line to enter the six or seven character tracking number, anyway? Inquiring minds, and all that...

I'm putting in my vote to GET RID OF THE WHITE SPACE, PLEASE!! I would not write for an editor who used excessive white space in publication because I know that the general readership wants substance, and already has plenty of room in the margins to make notes, should they so desire. No one wants to turn thirty pages to read what was formerly printed on fifteen or twenty. No one sitting in front of a computer monitor wants to scroll twice as far to read a cache page. White space was a fleeting fad among publishers in the 70s. It was abandoned when new subscriptions declined and old ones were cancelled. Don't kid yourself. It's not pretty. It's not stylish. It's unwanted and ugly and out of vogue.

I have not seen this mentioned yet, either: The display of an email sent via a cacher's profile is not broken into paragraphs regardless of how it is typed. However, the copy which the sender receives is displayed correctly.

This is one of those bugs that we keep fixing but then keeps coming back. I've got it entered in the bug queue and we will address it, although I can't see when you'll see the fix on the live site. My caching partner claims it displays correctly with IE presently, but my Firefox still shows the caches out of date sequence. Not sure if that information will help you track it down, but I hope so.

I was co-FTF with two good friends at a paddle cache. I just happened to be in the proper end of the rowboat to make the grab. That's not the whole story, though. Y'see, the cache owner had said in the description that this was a "kayak" cache. Somebody came along two days later and claimed FTF because they had used a kayak, and we'd been in a rowboat.

P.S. I'd give you a screen shot of that, but the white space makes it three feet long.

I'm not sure this has been addressed yet. When you look up another cacher's profile to see what caches they've found recently, the list displays in the order their logs were written rather than being grouped by date as they were previously. I normally read all of my caching partner's logs and he doesn't necessarily log in order by date, so now his list of recent finds shows from top to bottom 5 caches found on 10 January 1 cache found on 13 January 2 more caches found on 10 January 1 cache found on 12 January 2 more caches found on 10 January It's very confusing having finds on any one given date split up by more recent finds.

I have noted the same problem... along with the # of finds / hides displayed not agreeing to what is actual. This has been an issue as far back as I can remember having the Friends facility. You'd think repairing it would have a higher priority than changing "Mine" to "Yours," but peoples' priorities ARE different, as we all know. "Bandaids and Velcro"...good one, Gitonyerhorse!

This thread has drifted somewhat off topic, so let me jump in here for a second to put it back on track. I cache frequently in the area where Geomimi55 places her hides, and most of them have been very clever and amusing. I will say that I was a bit concerned when my caching partner and I found the microwave, because I thought that sooner or later someone would report a "meth lab" to the police. We have a serious problem with drug labs in Southwest Washington, purportedly one of the worst in the nation. Over the last ten years, my fishing buddy and I have found the remains of SIX. Old microwave ovens are frequently used in the manufacture of meth, not to cook it but to provide a place in which it can be cooked. I can understand where a non-geocacher walking into this scene might have misinterpreted what was in view. The "bomb site" is off the "Westside Highway," but don't mistake that for a thoroughfare. It's a two-lane country road which parallels the river, and the nearest building is probably two miles away. My question was, "What did the bomb squad think the bomb was intended to blow up?" A sturgeon? Spawning salmon? An idle fisherman? Not exactly what you'd call terrorist targets. No, I think the Bomb Squad was called in as they often are when a meth lab is found. It's just a wonder that a HazMat team wasn't called out as well. That said, it was a sad day for the Keebler Elves, but at least it gave the area's geocachers good reason to have an impromptu get-together. We called it a "wake," and about thirty of us grouped to mourn the passage of this humorous cache. And then I wonder what will happen if anyone comes across any of the dead vacuum cleaners in Frisbee'r's "This Cache Sucks!"

Not on my display! I just checked and...ah, my poor dashed hopes! It still looks just like the screen shot above.

Just thought I'd throw another screen shot in here to validate other folks' claims that their "Friends" page is messed up. What's wrong with this page? Besides Slimy being my Friend, I mean... Looking over this thread, I have counted ONE person who likes the white space to...oh, I don't know, a hundred maybe? who HATE it. It makes users scroll unnecessarily. It prints out the same way it looks on the page and uses twice as much paper - don't make me go all environmental on you! And any editor who employed it in today's world would be out of a job faster than he could say "spit." Would YOU read a magazine if you had to turn pages every few words? Let me put it in very simple terms for the Groundspeak Team: DITCH THE WHITE SPACE! IT'S BAD DESIGN!

So maybe we should rather refer to it as "line spacing"? On my screen it looks as if there are lots of extra empty lines on the new pages that blow up the page size. Not on yours? (running Firefox 3.5.7) I'm not sure which pages you're referring to. Although, my profile page looks the same as the example that Crow used earlier. I use both IE8, and Firefox 3.0.12 (I guess that's what I'm using). Things look fine to me on both of them, although I can see what some people are talking about with not needing the extra space that could be used to widen the info more. I'm also using one of the more recent versions of Firefox. Not only is there an excess of white space between lines and paragraphs on the cache page, but peoples' logs have turned into islands. Navigating to them is an all-day project.

White space. It would be okay if Nemo and Dory were swimming around in it, but as it stands, it reminds me of looking at a clearcut. Nothin' in there but a few stumps and some fireweed.

Good grief! It looks like the graphic designer graduated in 1975 with all the white space. It was a fad then, and it faded rapidly because the trade-off was loss of context. I realize we're not talking about number of pages in a magazine here, but I really don't enjoy spending my afternoon scrolling down barren wastelands to reach the pertinent information.

Howdy, TC! I have two adopted caches, and on both of them, I have preserved the original cache description with the exception of fixing spelling and blatant grammatical errors. I also kept the original owner's name and added my own after it, and also added a bit of text explaining the adoptions at the head of the page. That said, an issue arose with one of them recently when it was wiped out by a flood. I replaced it with a new container approximately 70 feet from the original site (further up the hillside and out of harm's way). I debated whether to archive the original since the owner has not signed into GC in almost a year and submit an entirely new cache, or whether to keep the original, since I had promised the owner to keep the cache going. I opted to do the latter. I had no choice but to change his hint, but kept the rest of the details as he had written them. In this particular instance, the owner's instructions for approaching the cache are not the best way (it's a 4.5 terrain), so I also had that to deliberate. Again, I have left the cache page as it was originally written. My log for it (written while it was still in his name) explains that there is a better way in. People still persist in trying to approach it from the wrong way and I often wonder if I should add a different set of waypoints. The jury is still out on that part of it. For now, it will stand in the owner's original version, ready for me to hand back to him intact if he ever returns to geocaching.

Regardless of the cache type, a requiring a photo is an ALR and no longer allowed. You may request a photo, but you cannot delete someone's log if they don't post it. I see another double standard surfacing, here. Any cache owner has the right to delete logs he or she doesn't find suitable or appropriate, or sometimes just because they don't like the way you part your hair. I know. My caching partner and I recently ran afoul of a newbie cacher who deleted our logs because he felt we had altered one of his caches (we removed a pen which had compacted the decoy note in the bottom of the container). Isn't that almost the same thing as an additional logging requirement? "Must be friendly with the owner in order to log this cache." It seems to me that GC should prevent deletions altogether.

Okay, reading over the rest of the thread, I've answered my own question. In order to preserve the 5/5 rating of my crocheted coordinates for the folks who honestly did the work themselves (and those few cheaters whose logs I should have deleted but didn't), I will archive the original and then reissue it as a new cache with a lower rating. This will be dreadfully unfair to the people who actually do the work...a project which takes about a week, even for a fast crocheter...but I suppose if they want to share the numbers with their friends who will in turn share the numbers with their friends and so on, that's up to them. I've already archived one very difficult puzzle due to numbers-sharing, so here's another victory for those who can't be bothered to make the mental or physical effort involved. As for photos to verify EC's...well, if your EC was written well in the first place, a photo shouldn't be required. Admittedly, I went to photo requirements on most (not all) of mine when there was an issue with a particular finder. That said, a good hand with Photoshop could get around the requirement fairly easily.

I own a five-star difficulty PUZZLE cache (with a five-star "joke" terrain) which has been acknowledged across the country as being one of very few which actually requires the finder to crochet a piece in order to reveal the coordinates. It has been used as an example in geocaching classes of one creative way cache developers write their puzzles. Since this is a PUZZLE cache, is it still considered an ALR since I require people to send me a photo of their completed work? (Not, mind you, to post a photo on the page.) When the cache was originally submitted, I did not have the requirement on the page. I changed it after a bout of numbers-sharing when someone participating in a Challenge wrote to me and accused me of "enabling" cheaters. At the time, I had no idea that particular Challenge was even occurring. I wrote to the Challenge owners to let them know that this cache should be screened out, but was told that they (the owners) did not have time (!) to check peoples' posted requirements. I eventually asked them to simply disallow my cache from the challenges, but at this point, I had become aware of the numbers-sharing issue and wasn't happy about it. That was when I posted the photo requirement as a safeguard.