Jump to content

the Seagnoid

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the Seagnoid

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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)

  5. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...