russellvt
-
Posts
154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by russellvt
-
-
Which Tuesday?Since the release of the new version will be happening after Tuesday, we'll all know shortly!! Hooray!!!!!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..."
-
But he's a rock GOD, and I think I should keep him in a glass jar in my basement.
Then STOP stalking him!!!I've bought a lot of Rush albums in the past [...] I'm tired of their drummer treating me rudely.
I think you mean drum god (kinda like the original bumper sticker)... *grins*
So what was this topic about, again? *laugh*
Edit: bbcode fubar
-
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*
-
I think it's possible to have a discussion of how Groundspeak could improve their service without resorting immediately to "it's their ball, if you don't like it, find another playground" argument.
It's always an option, but why not encourage improvements here before walking out?
There's already an entire forum pretty much dedicated to just that...
-
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.Since we cache owners are vital stakeholders, should we not have a say in the governance of the site?
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
-
I also spent half an hour searching for one of my caches that had been moved about 30 feet. I later wrote the last finder to see where they had found it and they told me they "found it in the wrong place so they moved it back to where it should be". There GPSr was accurate and mine was not?
I have seen cache "migration" with several of my hides. Right now, there are 2 of my caches that I cannot find for the life of me but folks keep logging them. I know they just are not anywhere within 12 feet of where I put them originally. Another one keeps being replaced about 15 feet from the orignal spot - I get logs about "putting back where the description fits better".
One of my caches that had been out for 4 years and never had any reported coordinate problems will require a visit soon after a newbie sent me a log stating that he "moved it back to where the coordinates zeroed out". I got 4 DNFs after that log. Finally somebody found it - now I know where to go looking for the thing.
Cachers amaze me sometimes.
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?
-
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.Not in the order I logged them, not in reverse order, not alphabetically.To recap, the dates are in correct order, but the logs on a particular date seem to be in a random order.
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.
-
Yep... great idea for a feature. Too bad it's still just difficult enough to get cache owners to use these attributes...
-
The other site is Waymarking.com It is part of the Groundspeak family of sites. Your password and user name work there just fine. Soon,when version II of the geocaching.com site is allowed to go live the sites will integrate even more closely.
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.
-
Any lackey thoughts on this? It could be very useful.
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...
-
A "nano" container size has been asked for and denied numerous times (someone said 5 times, someone else said 6). That topic seems closed unless someone can come up with arguments beyond what has already been presented. Merely for the sake of sorting isn't going to cut it.
And there-in lies the issue... glad to hear this thread can finally take a long (?) deserved rest...
-
Actually this is the 5th thread where a nano sized cache was discussed ad nauseum. I purposely reiterated. the measurement of a nanometer[...]
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).
What are the rules in Geocaching?Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:
Take something from the cache
Leave something in the cache
Write about it in the logbook
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).
With a nano their is nothing to take or leave, we should call them "cacheless caches," or No Redeeming Value micros.
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...???)
-
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.Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.Thanks for jumping in again 'Nate to give us the low-down (or, of course, the occasional bat-to-the-head)!
-
Wrong!
A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet.
A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.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...
)Using "nano" in the forums is the correct term to describe the really small caches that hold only a rolled up strip of paper from a shredder.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)
-
If it were just about finding nanos versus micros, I'd be all for it. However, the big picture isn't about simply the difference in nano and micro.
[...]
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.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?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).
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.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."
There were times when a virtual cache was "placed" when a physical cache could have easily been placed. The notion was virts needed no maintenance (which was inaccurate to begin with). In actuality, I think it was more because it was easy. It wouldn't have been to much of a problem except that back then a virt could block a physical cache. If some goof found a nice little park and plopped a virt in there, someone who had the motivation to place a proper cache couldn't--it was blocked. The virt was the perfect lazy owner's cache type; no log, no chance of being muggled, no effort to effectively hide a physical container, etc.Now, micros and, to a much greater extent, nanos, are the answer to lazy placements.
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...
No, I'm not saying all micros or nanos are lazy hides any more than were the virtuals. However, if you don't want to put in the effect and expense of placing a proper "classic" cache then nanos are the way to go just like virts were way back when.See, my answer is not to accommodate something which I see as bad for the hobby, but to discourage it.
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.
Some folks will complain that they can't hide anything larger than a nano where they wanted to hide it. I say, "buffalo chips!" 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!" How many times has someone found a nano under a lamp post that could have held a small--or at least the larger end of micro? While I don't go out of my way to find these, every single one to date has been that case. We've hidden full-sized caches in smaller parks. Even the one cache that was listed as a micro was from before the small size and would have been as one today, yet is still active as a letterbox in a busy park. Go figure. Maybe it's lack of hiding skills, I don't know. It takes nearly zero skill to hide a nano as compared to hiding a S.A.W. can in the same area.Some folks will say "I wanted to hide a nano." Sure. I'm wondering the percentage of those that "wanted" was "I wanted to not to have to put in the effort of hiding a larger cache complete with swag."
I'm not the first to comment on micros, and especially nanos, being the "lazy cacher's hide." I do see a deeper problem in where it's becoming the norm much like virtuals were going before the "Wow!" requirement. ...much like codeword caches.
I see no reason to encourage folks going further down this path by accommodating them with a new size category.
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.
-
Wrong!
A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet.
A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.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?
Clearly based on this post, "TPTB" spoke:At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.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?
-
I suppose when you're validating arguments you can reject any argument you wish as invalid.I have not seen any valid argument against it.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).
Sure, this site describes a geocache as simply a logbook. However, the hobby is built on and named after what goes in the container. It's not called "geologging." Calling a nano a cache is just about as valid, IMHO, as calling a virtual or a codeword cache, a cache. The only difference is the interaction between seeker and owner, i.e. no email verification on nanos.Heck, virts are better than nanos. By far, I've seen more interesting locations with virts than nanos.
So, with the move away from virtual caches and back to a more "classic" cache, I'd say the size "nano" is not needed, warranted, and should not be encouraged.
...but, I guess the above is not a valid argument.
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)
-
Wrong!
A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet.
A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.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.
-
You kind of lost the point of my post when you parsed it. It was commenting on TT's post, which basically stated that if enough whining goes on, then TPTB must make whatever changes are being demanded.
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.
-
I've come to realize that lots of people complain about lots of things and that it isn't worth my time to react to every issue. Too often, these complaints are the attempts of a few people to try to change reality to match their desires to the detriment of others.
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).
-
How do you know how they store their passwords? I usually hash the password using the username as a salt. I think that's pretty common. I would assume that Groundspeak at least does that. If they don't, then I certainly have a problem with that, because I should be the only one with access to my password...
You a disgruntled ex-employee or something? (just kidding about that, but seriously, how do you know how the passwords are stored in the database?)
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*).
-
I found seven on my first day!
[...]
Now that I found most of the ones at the bike trails, I am thinking of hiding my own!
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...
-
I've been using Google Calendar since the day it launched, and would love Groundspeak to created a calendar we all could add to our "Other Calendars."
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
-
The current order is Chrono by day and then within that day they are sorted top (first) down in the order you logged them.
Within each day - it makes sense. All together it does not.
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.
)
A pet peeve
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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).