the Seagnoid

Dammit, I just re-discovered a cache I had disabled (got washed away in a flood) two weeks ago. PLEASE implement this!!

This is probably almost a bug now While at a Mega I found 10 lab caches and had a lot of fun. My profile page is updated with the finds and it all looks good. My statistics page does not look good. My cache count in the geocaching banner shows 2644 finds, my statistics page shows 2634 finds. I appreciate that these lab caches are development caches of a sort, but if there is an icon and count facility for the profile page then there should be no reason why the statistics page cannot be updated to reflect this too. Bits that need updating: Your Caching Chronology with the correct count, Cache Types I've Found with a new cache type. Container Types for lab caches should probably be set to <not chosen>. Terrain and difficulty is a problem, perhaps the defaults? <1.5/1.5>.

Just had another New Zealand geocacher test this - his is fine, so not a Groundspeak bug. Maybe a bug with a version of Java or something else. Cancel this bug report, thanks!

For about a month now (i.e. before the recent site maintenance) New Zealand switched to daylight savings time, GMT+13. Now, when I click the "Update my Statistics Now" button it updates the statistics correctly but reports that the statistics were last updated 12 hours ago. Prior to this it reported "less than a minute ago". This is confirmed on two different versions of firefox and on IE, on three different computers, with two different geocaching users. I have confirmed my profile settings are still set for New Zealand time, and that my computer time is correct. Can that text not handle GMT+13 and is the +13 hours causing a rollover effect?

Once the email advising me that a cache needs maintenance is gone, it can be very hard to work out which cache it was. It would be nice to have a summary list of caches that need maintenance, listed in Profile:Quickiew, just above the summary list of Your Unpublished Disabled Caches. This would result in them being constantly highlighted to the cache owner (me), which means I won't forget them and they will get maintained faster, thus improving the caching experience for those that hunt for it. I have just noticed I have a cache that has needed maintenance for over a month! Normally I fix them within a week. Which others of mine need maintenance? I don't know. Thanks guys, Tom

Project-gc.gom is brilliant. Thanks for your help, guys. Tom.

While I appreciate that there is sometimes a need to have a duplicate find on a cache, for many of us there is no valid reason - except an accident. For instance I am trying to help a cacher that has 999 finds, of which 8 are duplicates. And the only way I can find them is to troll through all 999 logs, copy each cache name or ID to another file, then sort it. EXTREMELY laborious. Could Groundspeak have a place to find duplicates (eg a "find duplicates" link on the statistic page where it says where it says "You've found xxx caches (xxy distinct)". This would list caches for which I have duplicates finds, and preferably provide links to the logs themselves. Also useful would be a "You have already logged a found on this cache" warning at the cache log creation page. Hopefully this will keep happy those who feel a need to record multiple finds, and also help those for who multiple finds counts are anathema. This is a very hotly contested topic over the years - something needs to be done in this area. The Seagnoid

Further to my efforts art resolving doubled up logs to get my cache count correct, I found a reporting bug on the geocaching.com website. Click Your profile / QuickView / geocaches / list caches you Have found. The report lists something like "Total Records: 67 - Page: 1 of 4 - < Prev << <[1 2 3 4]> >> Next > " However when adding up the records they do not match the total specified (in this case it shows 62). Yes, this is because of multiple Found logs, but in this case the page directly implies all logs are included. (This Example is from Fiz $ Tas public prifile, geocaches / traditional cache. I am helping her resolve her doubleups) Could the site be corrected so that when it says 67 records, it actually lists all 67 records. And if possible somewhere somehow have an option to list caches that have doubled entries. Everyone I know in my area does not like the distorted figures accidental doubled found entries causes, and resolving them can be difficult. Thanks, The Seagnoid

A minor bug - if too much text is added to a trackable description the page correctly alerts the problem and advises that only 10,000 characters are allowed. It also advises that there is too much text in the mission statement, even though the mission text is well under the limit.

Hmmm... looks like I have to learn GSAK...

By the way, I don't have any at the moment - had one yesterday that prompted this, but managed to work out which one it was.

Is there an easy way to identify which caches I have reported multiple finds on? While I understand that there were some caches that moved, and cachers were invited to refind them, resulting in the x finds on y unique caches, there are none in my home country and I do not want to sully my find count. Once identified I can easily delete the rogue log. It is the finding that is the problem. Thanks,

When logging a cache note (eg a found) Ukranian fonts show correctly in the edit notes field. The contents of this are then emailed in Ukranian correctly to the cache owner but the log posted on the cache page shows only question marks. The cache page itself (excluding the logs) does correctly display Ukranian fonts. Same problem exists for Russian. Oddly though, Japanese shows correctly. In case it makes a difference, I am viewing from an english machine, however a quick browse of Ukranian and Russion caches show no Ukranian/Russian logs, suggesting the problem is not limited by my region/language.

The wrong cache size chosen problem may now be fixed withthe new cache publish pages, which shows a cache in a hand so that the cachers has an idea of just what size to advertise.

Actually, micro is film cannister size. Probably the best new cache size needed is "nano" which is the logbook only size. And yes, I would like to grandfather the not chosen option too.

Again not stictly a bug but an enhancement, again cannot find the correct forum for logging enhancements. Historoically cache hiders would move caches and reinvite people to find them again, thus resulting in the notorious "x finds on y unique caches" statement that shows up everywhere on the site. This does not appear to be as common now, maybe it is time to change this mechanism. I propose a new log type "Refound it", which does not need to appear in the log type drop down box. When "Found it" or Refound it" (if it does appear) are selected, a query is run to see if that cacher has found that cache before. If so, it is logged as a Refind, if not it is logged as a Found. This would also have to be run over the historical database, relogging subsequent finds for each cacher as refinds. The advantage of this is that many cachers do not like to log refinds - x caches found on exactly x unique caches is our preference. When I discover x unique finds on x+1 caches I have to troll through my logs to find the duplicate find and change it to a Write Note. I would also prefer the statement changed to x finds, y refinds, so that the primary cache count is corrected, but that should be checked with other forum members - is this a good idea? In fact, I personally would be happy with refinds dropped altogether - subsequent finds converted to Write Notes, but that is probably a bigger discussion. Seagnoid

This is not strictly a bug but an enhancement, but I cannot find a more appropriate place to put this. When a trackable image is deleted from a log by the cache owner (eg it contains spoiler information, such as the tracking number) The cache owner is required to complete a reason which presumabley gets emailed to the log owner. It is also posted into the cache log as a "did not find". Two things: Firstly "Did not find" for deleting an image is a confusing log type. The cache was found, so was the trackable. It should be flagged as a "log deleted" log type, or something similar. Secondly, I approve of the "reason for deletion" mechanism, and I recommend it be used for all log types. For instance a case where a cacher obviously did not attend the cache, or where a cacher obviously did not find the trackable (eg just lucked on the correct tracking ID), the cacher should be sent a reason as to why their log was deleted. Certainly this could be done as a discussion via email, but formally logged with Groundspeak would be better. Currently the image deletion is the only log type that requests a reason and presumably notifies the log owner.

Thanks baloo&bd. That solves half the problem. Can a reviewer put a cache up for adoption where the original owner cannot be contacted (after a reasonable time, eg a year)?

Is there actually a good reason why the mini stats bar (and other places on the site) does not have a unique clause in the query it uses to pull the finds stats? If I accidentally logedg a find twice on the same cache (instead of a find and a note) it shows what is effectly a wrong count. For that matter, there are a number of places on the website where "xxx finds, xxy unique" is mentioned - finding a cache a second time is no challange - in fact they could be converted to write notes. Having said that I personally do not mind the multiple find logs, I just would like to see the stats count reflect the true number.

I love TBs. I would love to see stats of trackables added to the mini-stats bar. These could be "discovers/releases". Sure I can get the info another way, but that argument also applies to finds/hides and argues to get rid of the mini-stats bar, which is kinda neat. Probably no point point the full stats page on trackables, but some of the graphs would still be nice - discovers/month and acumulated discovers/month for example. Discovers here would also include grabs, and should just be unique counts (ie ignore subsequent grabs)

It is a bit hard to do maintenance when I now live in a different part of the country. I would like the option to hand over my cache to someone else (who would then need to elect to accept it, a bit like the friends mechanism). That will affect our hides counts, but I don't see an easy way out of that. Also, with the thread of archiving unmaintained caches with inactive owners, the reviewer could offer those caches for a change of ownership, rather than acrive them off.