thomfre
-
Posts
571 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thomfre
-
-
4 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:
One last time: GROW....UP.
Don't grow up. It's a trap!
-
.png)
2
-
-
Just now, Rikitan said:
Log by pencil, send picture if you are asked for. Easy.
Do you take pictures of all logs you sign? PS: he was never asked to send it.
-
Just now, Rikitan said:
That's different responsibility - related to keeping the listing / cache page up to date.
Responsibility to identify and delete false logs can only be done by checking the physical logbook, I think.
Doesn't matter what you think. This is what the guidelines (that you linked to) say.
But I fully agree that you have to check the log book before deleting anything...
-
1 minute ago, Rikitan said:
I agree with this, it is polite to email the log owner first.
From discussion above I understood that Korsgat did not provided any evidence untill he posted the picture here. Pressumably, to provoke repetitive deletions.
This is what I found hilarious.
He said that he described the log book, including the order of the logs in it (which did not match the order online). How is that not additional evidence?
-
Just now, Rikitan said:
I use to identify false logs by checking the physical logbook regularly. How do you do it?
I do what the guideline tell me to, I monitor the online cache page. The text before the guideline quote is:
"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must" -
1 minute ago, Rikitan said:
Because it leads to unecessary confusion, this thread being best example.
- From now on, is it expected from CO to check logbooks with UV light?
- Next finders can't see the log in logbook and their write across the previous, invisible one.
P.S. All CO's are expected to be checking their logbooks and deleting unvalid ones. Kudos to ones who take it responsibly.
Long time since you read that link, Rikitan?
The text is now saying:
"Monitor logs for reported problems." and "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."Nowhere does it say that the CO have to check the physical log book to verify all finds.
If we look here: https://www.geocaching.com/help//index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=204
You will also see that it says: "Email the log owner", which was not done at all here...
The confusion caused here is from this CO, who regularly have discussions like this. He won't accept team signatures, even after Groundspeak have verified that it's perfectly OK. He won't even accept two signatures that appear to be written in the same handwriting. Maybe someone needs to take a chill pill...
-
1
-
.png)
1
-
I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?
The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, dubidubno said:
I consistently delete cheaters who claim a find without an entry in the log. I cannot verify this entry, and I suspect that they are claiming to do this to make it harder for me to stop cheaters.
You cannot verify because you don't have a UV light, or because you can't find the signature with a UV light?
Have you given the loggers a chance to send you additional proof? Did you care to ask any of them before you deleted?
-
Just now, dubidubno said:
What could the motivation of the loggers be, to sign the log in invisible ink? They must have known it would be overwritten by subsequent loggers. Also, I think it's unreasonable to expect cache owners to invest in ultraviolet light equipment. It's like an additional logging requirement in reverse.
I have asked some of the invisible ink loggers about their motivation, but they have chosen not to state.Does it matter? What's your motivation?
-
21 minutes ago, noncentric said:
Didn't we already have an entire thread about the UV signing? https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/349598-signing-log-with-ultraviolet-marker
Yes! He just waited until now to start deleting logs. Without asking the logger first. No, I'm not one of the loggers. But let's just say someone in this thread have made himself famous in Norway for making his own interpretations of the guidelines
4 minutes ago, HHL said:It's a game, Honey. Stop your trolling behaviour please.
+1
-
-
No Twitter account needed to check. There's still nothing there (HQ probably sleeping now): https://twitter.com/GoGeocaching
The problem is also intermittent for me. I used direct links to dashboard and cache pages when I got this error.
-
.png)
1
-
-
-
-
11 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:
I'll just add that any speed issues with the new map are mostly with the geocaching map layer. When I switch the map over to Google Street Map, it becomes much more responsive.
The map itself isn't that bad (but your comment suggests that the Google Maps layer doesn't use vector tiles). The issue I have is with the caches, and they load just as slow on the Google Maps layer, as they do on the Geocaching layer.
Edit: Google Maps doesn't use vector tiles. I don't think switching to vector tiles was a good move.
-
2 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:
I would think the new map is easier to use on high resolutions (let's assume you've switched it over to Google Maps instead of the Geocaching Map). So many features of the side bar are space hogs that those high resolution retina displays would actually give you the proper real estate.
It's not. It requires a lot more mouse movement than the old did to accomplish the same. And that's not a good thing.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, K13 said:
I'm aware that I can currently use the familiar map, but what about next month, or in August?
I'd rather have confirmation from a lackey on this super-critical-to-me question
I thought you asked if you could get directly to the *new* map, like you could with the old. Sorry for misunderstanding.
I fully agree. If the old map is lost, I see no reason to use geocaching.com anymore (just hope the Project-GC map is better than the new map here). It's where I spend most of my time on the site. And the new map is nowhere close to being able to replace the old map for me. It's too slow, and hard to use on high resolutions.-
4
-
-
It appears that too many of the input fields in the cache submission process is accepted without sanitizing the input properly.
The cache page for this cache looks really ugly, probably because of a missing end tag: https://coord.info/GC6AHXY
I've recently also seen issues where open tags in the "Hidden by" field caused all links on the page to go to the owner profile. Fields that have no reason to accept HTML, should not accept HTML...
-
2 minutes ago, HHL said:
Could you please explain what you mean by this?
As more people start to edit their events, more and more events get default times added.
Edit: I've been manually adding times to events for large parts of the world for 2+ years, so it's easy for me to see how this issue is spreading.
-
7 hours ago, K13 said:
@brendanjw Thanks for the immediate reply of my first question.
What about my second question? Will I also be able to go directly to the map, as I currently do 99.5% of the time I open the website for caching?
Yes, new map: https://www.geocaching.com/play/map and old map: https://www.geocaching.com/map
-
2 hours ago, lodgebarn said:
In reality this new feature seems to be creating problems and potential confusion where none existed before.
Yes! And it gets worse every day. Please, Groundspeak, fix this issue!
-
3
-
-
18 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:
According to https://get.webgl.org/ my browser declares it supports WebGL, but apparently it doesn't do so properly. The spinning cube is all messed up. First time it's been an issue for me, well, assuming I planned to use the new maps.
It would seem the new maps use/need WebGL - a good argument for keeping the classic maps around for a while.
I really hope the old map get to continue to live. It's much smoother and faster to use, specially when moving around the map. Even with my auto-refresh-script, the new map is considerably slower use than the old map.
-
6
-
-
10 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:
The traditional map at https://coord.info/map works fine as usual. Whew.
* My PC hardware is over 10 years old. Is there a hardware-requirements spec somewhere? I thought we abstracted hardware away these days...
The new map is a lot more resource intensive (on the client side, but probably also on the server side). My browsers are by far the most resource intensive applications I have on my computers. Not even debugging a large application in Visual Studio can come close to a Chrome window with Facebook and a couple other tabs. This seems to be the way geocaching.com is taking too.
-
1
-
-
There are lots of events published/updated with default times and a different time in the description. Please remove the default time value.
.png)
The text is now saying:
.png)
.png)
Cacher keeps re-logging deleted log - possible to block?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
You are wrong.