Jump to content

russellvt

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by russellvt

  1. There are also stories of "griefers," who fall outside all of the above categories... I'll leave that one up to your imagination, where they fit in, though. I've also seen areas where there would appear to be a couple of folks (hiders) that would often appear "targeted," too (could just be terrible hides, but I'm not necessarily inclined to think that way).
  2. Which Tuesday? I hope you mean this coming Tuesday, July 14, 2008. On the other hand, 'After Tuesday' still encompasses a rather long, indeterminate period... Is there a thread on the subject I should be reading? Somehow this struck me with the quote, "I'll gladly pay you tuesday..."
  3. Then STOP stalking him!!! But he's a rock GOD, and I think I should keep him in a glass jar in my basement. I think you mean drum god (kinda like the original bumper sticker)... *grins* So what was this topic about, again? *laugh* Edit: bbcode fubar
  4. Three words: Windows IIS Server Ok, a few more, actually... as others have already stated, it always seems to be an intermittent problem that resolves itself five to ten minutes or so later... perhaps when the reboot gods come through and give it a swift kick or something... *shrugs*
  5. There's already an entire forum pretty much dedicated to just that...
  6. With all due respect, and I can certainly understand and empathize with your points (and I might even agree with one or more of them). But, you probably own a cell phone, too (and pay a monthly service fee for the privilege)... but without buying a significant amount of stock in the company, it doesn't give you a right to tell them how to run their services. Put simply, you're a participant, free to pull all your caches whenever you feel like it (GC doesn't "own" them - you do)... you're not a stock (stake) holder. Similarly, the reviewers do so because they want to... I'm pretty sure they could walk away from it at any time, as well. And as someone already pointed out... there are lots of places revenue ends up going (more than just the obvious). Large dynamic websites tend to suck up a lot of time/money... Edit: small clarifications
  7. I think one problem, particularly with the newbies, is that folks do/may not understand EPE and how it affects both the hide and the finders. Rather than "hide as well or better than you found it," it would seem logical to "hide ithow you found it, and report any suspected irregularties to the owner." NoSuchCache and I recently ran in to a similar issue with a "TB Hotel" type cache (my log and her log). I'm happy to say that the cache owner took the logs to heart (even though it felt "funny" leaving them) and got right out and fixed it. The one issue I'll admit that I sometimes have, though (even with about 250 caches under my belt right now) are "the more complicated hides." That is, hides which come off a specific tree branch, or under a specific bush in a dense area, or something where it could be visually confusing to "remember" the hide after you grab it, move to a "safe" spot to sign, and then return to replace the cache. I have to admit that on a few occassions, I've found myself putting a cache back thinking "Um, I think this is the right place I just pulled this off of" -- I must be getting old or something, eh? But I guess that's part of where the "hide as well or better than you found it" kind of comes in, no?
  8. Again, they're in the order you logged them, from top to bottom (within each date)... the logs (by logid) are still coming out of the DB sequential, but they're (currently) spewed out in a seemingly random fashion. GSAK and other third party applications are able to "do the right thing" with the logs, provided you enter your logs in the order in which you found them. Hopefully this is yet another thing they'll fix in GC 2.0. Note: Adding in things like DNFs, bugs, etc would seem to make the order even more confusing... but I'm assuming you only care about the "found" logs as far as order goes... Edit: Added the note.
  9. Yep... great idea for a feature. Too bad it's still just difficult enough to get cache owners to use these attributes...
  10. I believe the tie between Waymarking and geocaching was severed a few months back... that might just be the profile pieces, though. You can also try out the TerraCaching website (URL intentionally left out - PM me if you want it and can't find it). They allow virtuals and/or locationless caches. I know there are a few people that enjoy both sites... there are other sites out there, as well.
  11. I agree that more powerful search features such as this (as well as a few others) are pretty much "needed," but, as previously mentioned, there are also already workarounds using third-party products... personally, I think the GC folk have more interest in keeping people on their site, surfing (read: ad revenue, etc), rather than resorting to other solutions, and they have hinted at these sorts of things might already be on the way. But TPTB may also have other plans/ideas and/or priorities...
  12. And there-in lies the issue... glad to hear this thread can finally take a long (?) deserved rest...
  13. In short (and as has already been pointed out), seems like "there be trolls" here. (ie. I mean, I had thought we were talking about terminology with respect to geocaching, but it sounded for a second there like we were talking about something else entirely). Well, considering how much is evolving or has changed, here... that page would appear to be getting rather old and (perhaps?) dated. That particular stanza hasn't been updated pretty much since inception, but there are plenty of other places that indicate only one of those three directives is "mandatory" (exercise left to reader). Well, if they're apparently of "no redeeming value," you might want to think about avoiding them (thensilly little discussions like this also won't trouble ya... ) But, as has also been pointed out... TPTB have already come back with a plain, simple, and polite indication that "no one's convincing them that a nano is needed." So, unless someone has a not-yet-dead horse that needs to be little (?) beaten, perhaps it's time to let this thread die so that another one can take its place (and we can be on to number six or seven (?) or whatever it is...???)
  14. I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site. Thanks for jumping in again 'Nate to give us the low-down (or, of course, the occasional bat-to-the-head)!
  15. Oh for peet's sake... now you're just being argumentative. Did you somehow forget that this discussion involves geocaching and it's own set of terms (ie. how they apply to the sport/activity/hobby)? FYI, micro (µ) is 10^-6 (Aka micron)... which, in terms of actual physical size, is similarly meaningless with any direct correlation to geocaching. A Micro is already "ridiculously tiny" which negates the necessity of "yet another size definition" for geocaching. I was on topic, you weren't. The size definition "micro" fits perfectly for the game I play. Oh-I-see... come in, flame about something pretty much completely unrelated to topic at-hand (eg. measurements in the metric system), then call me off-topic for pointing it out... To recap, a "nano" for the purposes of geocaching (and this discussion) is a container smaller than a micro, often thought of as "bullet sized" (aka bison tube) or smaller. You can find the containers at a lot of different places like GeoSwag, GPS City, Box64, Coin Swag or a number of other places as well. We're not talking about the metric system here, but a game/activity which we all are supposed to be enjoying... else, why are we here, right? This is about the 6th thread requesting a nano category that he's jumped in with this straw man argument and flamed people for needing something as small as a nanometer. Do a search on "nanometer" posts by him and you'll see. The fact is, you NEVER said nanometer sized container, you said "nano". He came in and added the "meter" and then argued against it's use - again. To be as literal as he is, the term nano is just a prefix to ANY measurement meaning one billionth of that unit. So he ASSumed you meant nanometer when you could have easily meant a nano(something 10 miles long), which would be a little over half an inch. Oh gggrrreeeaaattt... Silly me for thinking that, just because we're on the Geocaching Forums and, thusly, in a community with its own set of terms and/or colloquialisms ... it'd be understood that I'd be referring to the community's accepted definition of the term and/or current topic. (thanks for pointing out the troll, though... ) That's funny... I'd never thought of it that way... of course, I also have an industrial strength crosscut shredder in my home office, so... *laughs* BTW... a completely unrelated tangent that only Mushtang may be interested in... the new live album is out! (though I've still yet to pick up my own copy)
  16. You'd suspect wrong. I was around before there was a small category. I know the size of the micros I found by the container they were in and not by how they were listed. 35mm and APS film cans were the norm for micros a few years ago and there was swag in them. We bought trinkets with the idea some of it would have to fit in a micro. I even had a micro Travel Bug. That's a pretty awesome little bug! I compliment you on your ingenuity, there! I'd love to see similar things, too... any chance you have a pointer to those bugs, or at least a "leg up" on how you created it? But yeah, I can certainly see the addition of the small size as having caused a bunch of confusion and ripple-effect in the current day game... also, as you also insinuated / pointed out, some folks may just enjoy being difficult and/or rebellious and may intentionally mislabel their container sizes (much like folks who intentionally post skewed/offset coordinates). I think this last quote goes to the heart of a disturbing trend I'm seeing. A few years ago when there was talk about getting rid of the virtual cache one of the arguments was some folks (including land managers though I don't think this is the case here) though virtual caches were "just as good" as regular caches. It was clear they weren't. With all due respect, I think as with any cache it really goes back to the actual cache owner and their creativity or what-not... I've seen a few virtuals that I thought were fantastic and plenty of small or regular caches that have been placed as-if they were placed "just to say that they've placed a cache somewhere." Very interesting point... though the cynical side of me would say that a larger/actual cache should be able to trump a smaller/virtual cache... I think that might encourage some behaviors that I don't really need to point out, here... Yeah, when you put it that way, it certainly makes sense... thanks for the calm/rational point. Though again, I've seen caches of all sizes that just felt like they were placed "for the sake of placing a cache." At the same time, I've seen a good number of micros and/or nanos that were some pretty ingenious (dare I say devious?) hides... though at the same rate, I also see the smaller caches as having more potential to encourage poor behavior among finders, too. I always cringe when I hear of the fake bird's nest or sprinkler caches or the like for this sort of reason... not because I don't think they have their own place and such, but because I think that it can encourage (teach?) folks to try to tear apart things where they really have no business doing so. Ha! You say that and all I can think of are old episodes of M*A*S*H with Henry Morgan (Colonel Potter) exclaiming "Buffalo Chips!" Yeah... certainly makes quite a bit of sense (and thank you for that... quite sincerely). Though, in the same right (and as I said previously), poorly hidden or thought-out caches come in all sizes, not just micros or nanos -- though agreed that the micro/nano can be more prone to such things. And again, I've seen a few micros/nanos that were very clearly good hides and, just my own general feeling, it seems to me that I find more of those than I find at the larger end of the size scale... but perhaps conversely, the smaller sizes also tend to fall in to the category of "why am I here?" (eg. the nano/micro stuck to a metal bench/trashcan outside a busy star*ucks). Similarly, NoSuchCache (my s/o and "caching buddy") and I continually comment (grumble?) on the "hide for a sake of a hide" caches. To that end, I/we generally tend to support some level of a "cache rating system" (more to the effect of a "corrective-level rating," asking each finder to rate the size, difficulty, terrain, hide, container and enjoyment of each cache); but that's yet another can of worms that's probably best left unopened.
  17. Oh for peet's sake... now you're just being argumentative. Did you somehow forget that this discussion involves geocaching and it's own set of terms (ie. how they apply to the sport/activity/hobby)? FYI, micro (µ) is 10^-6 (Aka micron)... which, in terms of actual physical size, is similarly meaningless with any direct correlation to geocaching. A Micro is already "ridiculously tiny" which negates the necessity of "yet another size definition" for geocaching. I was on topic, you weren't. The size definition "micro" fits perfectly for the game I play. Oh-I-see... come in, flame about something pretty much completely unrelated to topic at-hand (eg. measurements in the metric system), then call me off-topic for pointing it out... To recap, a "nano" for the purposes of geocaching (and this discussion) is a container smaller than a micro, often thought of as "bullet sized" (aka bison tube) or smaller. You can find the containers at a lot of different places like GeoSwag, GPS City, Box64, Coin Swag or a number of other places as well. We're not talking about the metric system here, but a game/activity which we all are supposed to be enjoying... else, why are we here, right? Yes, I realize that... but like anything else, there are points at which the game may to evolve. Were this not the case, there'd still be virtuals and/or locationless not to mention a few other things. We'd also not have the "small" size at this point (as someone else had already pointed out, that cache size was later added on when it was clear there was a need for it). What some folks here are trying to say is that there would appear to be a need for yet-one-more-size... personally, I just think that the current ambiguity between small and micro (brought on when the new size was added) is what's causing the current argument. To clarify (ie. before you decide you now want to argue the aforementioned "ambiguity"), since there are miss-sized caches predating the addition of the new size, current finders tend to see small/micro containers which are arguably listed incorrectly or contrary to current standards. I'm also not saying this doesn't happen at other sizes, particularly the "unknown" size -- it just seems more prevalent with the micro/small categories and that is what's causing the current bit of confusion... just imagine how out of control it might get were there now another small size to choose from, eh?
  18. I suppose when you're validating arguments you can reject any argument you wish as invalid. I've said I'm not keen on the nano size because it validates cacheless caches. Just how much swag can you get in a nano? Swag in micros? Sure. When we first started we found quite a few micros before we found the first one that didn't have trinkets. So, as it stands, each size can have swag. Anyone seen swag in a nano? Ummm... part of the point is that micros (by definition) currently contain pretty much everything from a "small" to the smallest cache seen. And, by your own argument, this very idea could help you avoid the caches which you don't like or think are "invalid"... with the current system, you don't really have any good way to do it, do you? How much swag can you really fit in a "hide-a-key" or 35mm film container following the addition of a log??? (since those are really about the largest of any true micro). I suspect the micros you are seeing with "swag" are the "small" containers that are still misclassified as micros... besides, are there really any cachers out there that are engaging in the activity for the swag? Currently the trend would appear to be that people placing nano caches are placing them and then simply putting "unknown" as the container size (which is almost more annoying). As previously stated, the method (intensity?) of search from even a micro versus a nano is completely different... it changes again between a (true) micro and a small... I don't feel there's such a big difference between the larger sizes, however (at least IMO). It's a valid argument, though I kinda think you might be contradicting yourself. In my own opinion (not like I have anyone else's) I think you just help prove why it makes a lot more sense to include the additional size... especially since folks like you (who think they're "not real caches") can easily filter them out so they don't have to see them. About the only good argument I've heard from not adding them, so far, is the confusion factor... after all, how many small containers these days are still improperly marked as micros? Unfortunately, though... I think we're stuck with nano caches, particularly in urban settings -- seems that rather than getting less popular, they're becoming a lot more commonplace. Many of the newer caches being placed (at least in my home area) are swag-less nanos or micros -- it can be frustrating, too, since it tends to make bug hiding a lot more difficult. (But I do agree there are some interesting virts out there... but there are other sites if you want to engage in that sort of thing, these days)
  19. Oh for peet's sake... now you're just being argumentative. Did you somehow forget that this discussion involves geocaching and it's own set of terms (ie. how they apply to the sport/activity/hobby)? FYI, micro (µ) is 10^-6 (Aka micron)... which, in terms of actual physical size, is similarly meaningless with any direct correlation to geocaching.
  20. Ah, ok... but I also look at it in the fact that it is their site... and, something to the effect of "you can't please all of the people all of the time." I know there are plenty of good suggestions on the forums... but, manpower is surely limited.
  21. I can't really fathom what "detriment" there would be to adding icons, persay, or even something like a "nano" category (though that might cause more widespread confusion, I guess). Only issue is the time required to implement... Personally, I think it might be cool if the icons somehow reflected "size" altogether, but that's more of a "nice to have" (not that the map isn't already cluttered enough, mind you). But perhaps they just need to fix the query tool to allow multiple conditions, instead (something it sounded like was being worked on at one point).
  22. Nope... never worked for them... just a rather "paranoid security curmudgeon," I guess... As far as the cleartext password issue, though... it's pretty clear if you ever click on the "forgot my password" link. Most database front-ends I've written with user credentials usually use my own password hashes (see below) with a select statement that only returns rows if there's a single, definite match (slightly different from outright comparison). Unfortunately, many sites take the aforementioned route (I'll refrain from listing "common violators" but it's not too hard a list to find elsewhere). BTW, passwords with salts tend to be fairly easily brute-forceable. Unfortunately, it's getting so that even md5 hashes are pretty much trivial these days, too. It's getting to be that the only "secure" method of storing passwords are through your own proprietary mechanisms, such as a salt-like md5, but that tends to cause a lot of programming overhead... yet more reason to always try to implement OTP solutions in my book (wanna talk about "cost" though... *laugh*).
  23. Wow... seven on the first day, solo? Two multis and two puzzles (you only logged six)? That's quite good! Congrats! (and welcome!) I think I was happy to find two (at night, no less), but I was pretty casual (scared?) to start and only had a borrowed eTrex GPS at the time... both caches were actually in reasonable walking distance from home. I think I actually used Streets and Trips to locate my first cache, though (technically I signed my first find after my second find, since I was looking at it for such a long time (days), thinking, is that really it?) As far as hiding one goes (and not to discourage anyone mind you), I follow the recommendation of a good fifty to hundred caches under your belt before doing a hide... largely because, well, I think I had pulled that off another site at one point and now, having found a couple hundred on my own, I can surely appreciate the knowledge and understanding you gain after a good solid hundred. Then again, I also mentioned how timid I was about my first find, so perhaps that's to be taken with more of a grain of salt...
  24. That sounds like a splendid idea, IMO... and probably easy enough to do through the Google API (the recent change from Yahoo to Google maps seen to indicate they're at least looking at google-related things now). BTW... the OP might want to shy away from the "bump" posts, as I thought I remember reading that blatant ones are not allowed here (I could be confusing this with any other umpteen forums I read, though). Edit: clarified "you" in previous post
  25. I agree... this should be fixed (and should be simple). Who cares if people log one way or the other, seems to make sense that your history would be displayed in the order it was entered. If you use the GSAK macros, some of them (like the stats generator) are smart enough to "sort logs by date" and will "do the right thing" when it comes to output (GSAK itself doesn't quite sort things in-order, but it's possible to do by querying the logs). Of course, using something like MySQL as a DB backend, sorting these would be trivial (ie. timestamps). I'm sure it's not much more difficult with any other database, though.
×
×
  • Create New...