Hynz

FWIW I would have not necessarily chosen Mary. No matter how well she is maintaining her 250 caches I can easily imagine that someone hiding 3 nice and well maintained caches which are distinguishable and each providing a unique experience (eg each cache is showing a different area and take a couple of hours to complete) is contributing much more quality I would be interested in looking for.

Genau so sollte es sein. Jeder einzelne Cache muss fuer sich stehen koennnen sonst hat er fuer mich keine Daseinsberechtigung. Mein Kriterium ob ein Cache Teil einer (von mir zu ignorierenden) Serie ist: Man nehme zwei eng beieinander liegende Caches und betrachte das Listing und Logs. Draengt sich der Verdacht auf, dass man keine individuellen Logs schreiben kann ==> Ignore der ganzen Serie.

Yes, it speaks volumes that so many complaints about the algorithm circle around the assumption that the contribution of an owner hiding 2*n caches must be far superior than that of an owner with n caches. FWIW having only this information I would have no problems to decide who's caches I probably would prefer searching for.

I stand corrected. All postings were marked read at the time of the change but since then (~6 weeks) the forum again remembers if I have read a thread. I hope this continues for the next months.

Am I the only one who is desperately missing the "memory" of the old forum? It was possible to enter a rarely read subforum and still locate the unread threads and even jump to new postings on old threads. Currently this new forum seems to only having a memory of 7 days witch is much to short. If eternal is not an option please set it to at least 6 months.

And again removing functionality for desktop users. No print (and read) friendly view anymore of whole chapters. OK, I'll bite. Why are you printing out whole chapters of the Help Center? I struggle to come up with a use case that doesn't involve a cup of hot cocoa and roaring fire. I don't want to print them but I prefer to *read* about a topic or maybe search with ctrl-F given that if I remember correct the search on the old Help Center gave rather weak results. For example just to read the Trackable Beginners Basic (which is one of 6 sub categories about trackables) you now need 6 selective clicks. Maybe you could provide a link to the next bullet point at the end of each page.

I completely understand this but let me tell you: You neither have to search them and if you do because you enjoy the company you don't necessarily have to log all of them anyway For me every C&P log would water down my log history so I strive to ignore caches where I'm not confident that I can write meaningful and unique logs. I never ever will do a PT but it happens that I enjoy to accompany my cacher friend who don't want to be selective. When I'm home writing my online logs I then decide to simply skip those where I can't find anything worth to write about.

I can't say that when I had to archive my cache because of a new PT nearby I still would call the PT ethos fine and wish more power to the people who like it. The PT lives now and at least some of your caches do not live anymore. Just sayin... But I guess I should adore your pragmatism.

And again removing functionality for desktop users. No print (and read) friendly view anymore of whole chapters.

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables. I'm very much against mindless visits (and also discoveries) of TBs because what I like (especially as an owner but also as a holder of a foreign TB) is being able to follow the history of a trackable which completely gets lost when visits are the predominant logs. I'm interested why you prefer that your TBs are getting lots of empty visits. Would you really be a happy owner looking at the map of this TB (you must be patient opening this link ) http://www.geocaching.com/track/map_gm.aspx?ID=3031224 I admit this is an extreme case and I should better ask the TB owner which so far I haven't done. But I had some "interesting" discussions which the current holder of the TB.

It's much worse than that: it's not a case of newbies not realizing they need to track down and update the NM logs: it's GS telling them that this one click is all it takes to report a problem, as if there's no such thing as an NM log. I'm wondering if the goal isn't to eventually get rid of NM logs altogether. Exactly! And the worrying thing is it can't be an oversight. It was deliberately decided that reporting the need for maintenance does not deserve some additional text. But I think it potentially could lead to an improved and streamlined workflow as long as it is clearly communicated that the one and only text box should not only be used to describe the Found/DNF/Note but also compulsory the reasons why an additional "maintenance need" was ticked. But to have a separate NM log with a boiler plate text as the only information about a problem is inadmissible.

I'm incredible disappointed by this changes. There was numerous good and constructive feedback regarding the issues when the page for editing drafts were changed. While some where taken into account (and the returning of the option to let all trackables visit a cache is not something I appreciate ) the main issues seems not being understood by GS. Having now this changes imposed also to the logging page without further explanations or reasonings it feels like a pinch in my stomach. So far I think there might be workarounds so I can continue to write logs which makes sense to me and for those I want to address with my logs. But currently I'm honestly feeling threatened by this sentence......

Agreed, but I think the "maintenance plan" can also be an honest description of the hiding and why there might be less need for *regular* maintenance. In such cases - and also considering the hiding history of the owner - I think a reviewer should be generous in publishing.

I've not investigated into the OPs situation and I don't want to advocate lightly for placing caches in far away areas. BUT If a well prepared cache at a rarely visited and well chosen spot is placed (and I admit it is not easy for a reviewer to know if this is the case) then I would prefer that such caches are published even when in case of maintenance issues the cache might be disabled for a couple of months. So I would hope that after a communication with my reviewer I would be allowed to place such a cache even without maintenance plan between my regular but not too often visits.

Brilliant analogy! I very much agree also to your opening post.

If you truly have the impression that most discovery logs serve a purpose this can only refer to the purpose to increase the number of logged travellers or number if icons for the logger. I guess alone the discovery logs which happen during or after events will account for the vast majority of all discovery logs. And don't tell me you have seen more than a handfull of those which serves a purpose for the owner.

I don't know if one can appeal the deletion of a trackable log, but I would certainly try if you deleted one of my valid discover logs. Are ALRs allowed on trackables? I wouldn't think so... How would such a log from you look like? In my currently only one description of active travellers I state: "Please spare him the meaningless "Discover" and "Visit/Took" logs. If not acompanied with pictures or stories such logs will probably be deleted." And I stick to it. But usually (at least if there is just a single discover log) I invite the logger to edit his/her log.

And afterwards please delete the note at the cache page. This has no effect for the TB but those notes take up space and do not carry any information neither for the owner of the cache nor for future visitors.

Du brauchst ihn nur zu "grabben". Dazu musst du auf der TB Seite rechts oben auf "Add a Log entry" klicken und dann kannst du als Aktion "Grab it from....." auswaehlen. Danach ist er wieder virtuell in deinem Besitz und du kannst dein Duplikat in einem Cache ablegen (=droppen). Ich seh aber gerade, dass du bisher TBs noch nie aus einem Cache entnommen (="retrieved") oder abgelegt (="dropped") hast sondern immer nur "discovered". Das Ablegen von TBs oder Geocoins in einem Cache ist eine Zusatzfunktion die du beim Schreiben eines Logs unter dem Textfeld auswaehlen musst bevor du das Log fuer den Cache absendest. P.S.: Alle Termini die ich verwendet habe beziehen sich auf die Webseite wenn sie auf Englisch gestellt ist. In Deutsch koennten sie teilweise anderst benannt sein.

Out of curiosity: Why would I need to solve a checker when I already have roughly decent coordinates of the final?

Because of ^this I also would like to see Groundspeak to remove the EXIF data from log photos. At least I expect as owner being informed about such upload *and* being able to silently remove the photo.

Yes, I would like to read a sound reasoning from Groundspeak why it is necessary to transmit my email address to a third party.

Wenn du ernsthaft glaubst durch Weglassen dieser Funktionalitaet anderen Cachern vorzuschreiben, dass sie individuelle Logs schreiben muessen kann ich dir nicht helfen. Du wirst doch nicht *alles* was von einer signifikanten Menge der User gewuenscht wird einbauen wollen bzw. das Nichteinbauen dann als implizite Vorschrift auffassen. Wie AnnaMoriz bereits geschrieben hat kann man nichtautomatisierte Logs von Cachern die keine Logs schreiben wollen relativ leicht mental ausblenden. Aber diese nichtssagenden und trotzdem umfangreichen Template-Logs waeren ohne das Angebot bei GClh (aber natuerlich auch GSAK) bei weitem nicht so verbreitet. Dass du mit Anfragen bombardiert werden wuerdest glaube ich (leider) und dass du keine Lust dazu hast versteh ich wie gesagt auch. Du kannst gerne (durchaus mit Recht) behaupten, dass ich mir keine Zeit und Arbeit nehmen kann/will einen langwieriger Kampf um diese Funktionalitaet im GClh zu fuehren. Du haettest halt unendlich mehr Einfluss als ich Cacher nicht zu dieser Praxis zu verfuehren.

Das kann ich (leider) voll und ganz nachvollziehen nachem es dir selbst offensichtlich nicht wichtig ist bzw. du kein Problem damit hast, dass Logs generell immer nichtssagender werden. Dieser Thread war fuer mich eine Gelegeneit abzutesten ob du - der GClh mit dieser Funktionalitaet uebernommen hat - nicht vielleicht selber diesen Aspekt kritisch siehst. Ich glaube, dass ein Maintainer so einer nichtkommerziellen Software es in der Hand hat Funktionen ein und auszubauen wenn es ihm oder ihr wichtig ist unabhaengig von der moeglicherweise vorhandenen Nachfrage danach.

Einem Geraet, das laenger als 2 Sekunden 0m anzeigt wuerde ich nicht trauen.