Jump to content

Hynz

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hynz

  1. FWIW, a swift response of clicking that link is back again. Thanks.
  2. Good luck with that In my experience GS do not interfere regarding TB-Logs.
  3. And those logs are part of the geocaching history of the people who have interacted with the original trackables. So to spell it out crystal clear: Please Don't Do It!
  4. What irks me more and more is the fact that when browsing often found caches especially in touristic areas that about 2/3rd of gallery photos are either photos of the logsheet (without the signature of the finder) or photos of the cache (often in the hands of the finder). The corresponding logtexts are short, generic and give rarely any hint about why such photo was attached. So my probably pesimistic interpretation of that is the following: Those finder rarely make a physical signature. They don't even consider that making a photo is only a stopgap which should be an exception. I belive they honestly think that's a fully accepted alternative way to mark their find. And owners of such caches rarely care about it. To the contrary they are happy and and best are appreciating finders who replace logsheets (certainly by just throwing away the old ones). More than an irk is it then for me when seldom found and remote caches (and god forbid my own caches ) are visited by cachers with that attitude.
  5. I absolutly agree to what you have written. But looking to the development the trackable system has undergone in the last years (no so much actively by Groundspeak but simply by IMHO misuse of a significant number of users) I have no hope for any improvements. At least not in a direction I would like to see.......
  6. Hierbei muss ich tatsächlich ein wenig wiedersprechen, zumindest was den Mutli angeht. Viele Locations sind ja schon "leider" vergeben und da noch irgendwo einen Multi zu legen, gestaltet sich da schon äußerst schwierig, da reicht es ja auch schon in einer Mittelgroßen Stadt zu leben meistens. Da sind Lab Caches ja eigentlich eine Interessante Alternative für, wenn man auch zumindest etwas aufzuzeigen hat. Verstehe ich nicht. Eine virtuelle Stage eines Multis hat genau die gleichen (naemlich fast gar keine) Einschraenkungen wie die fuer eine Lab-Station. Und wenn man zu den Labs noch einen physischen Bonus legen kann gibt es zu einem Multi de facto gar keinen Unterschied bezueglich der Schwierigkeit geeignete Stages und Platz fuer den Final zu finden.
  7. Good. I know I'm flogging a dead horse but let me suggest exchanging "progress" to "contributions" in the message about deleting the account.
  8. OK, apparently nobody is using this really useful feature. Hope it will sort out along upcoming forum updates but I would appreciate if a moderator could have a look into it.
  9. Thanks for continuing tweeking the list output. Compared to the first incarnation there are certainly improvements visible. So please don't stop. Since malicious tongues might argue improvements are easily possible only because of the abysmal baseline so just to visualize the difference of the old and currently new search list. The pictures are adapted to show the true screen real estate: 9 resulting caches taking 1015x734 pixel and even presents the date of my own find in an (certainly only IMHO) clean and compact view. 9 resulting caches taking 1831x893 pixel (219%, more than the doubble area). On my 27 inch monitor I need to go almost fullscreen with my browser to get the last column (and no way to eventually just scroll horizontal to see it). I get it that nowadays web developer are somehow forced to use certain tools which are a bit unflexible but provide the possibility to produce nice outputs quickly and maybe even without much programming skills. But is the new list layout really the best what Groundspeak can do? Or are there really a significant number of people out there (even within the developers) who seriously consider the second picture as an "enhanced" version of the first?
  10. May I - in all humbleness - ask you if you are even *aware* that half of your caches have been archived because you apparently have refused doing maintainance
  11. Is there a known issue with the "Following Areas" function on the forum? Since a couple of days it takes "ages" for me to get the list after clicking on the link.
  12. FWIW I just followed a link from my RSS-feed of the Geocaching-Blog to a new article in german https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2022/07/auffrischung-der-geocaching-etikette-tipps-fur-cache-finder/ which further linked to an 2019 article also in german https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/06/geocaching-etikette-201-finden-und-loggen/ It seems this articles were german only at least I couldn't find the corresponding english articles (the blog website is terrible IMHO) Beside a major gripe I find the 2019 article extremly well written and I wished knowledge of this text would be a requirement for everybody before heading out finding caches. But now to the on-topic gripe in that article: Translate:
  13. Sorry but I can't resist answering this question: A virtual stage for a Multi
  14. ^this It's appalling that just a couple of weeks after enabling this setting by GS how many users make use of that.
  15. Acctually, no, this is not what the OP wanted. He wanted to see within a list of caches if eventually there is a TB in one or another cache on that list. I'm also missing this information in the new lists which was nicely shown in the old list together with other usefull information eg if a NM flag is set for a cache or on which date I eventually had already found that cache All this is missing in the new list layout.
  16. Interesting, thanks for that information. I think nobody here knows about the quantity of such deletion request from the past. I assume it was rather low. So I'm suprised that it seems necessary to reduce staff time for it but regardless of the numbers from the past it's obvious that this numbers will increase now because it's possible to do it without any hassle for the user. I imagine new users trying out geocaching, writing some logs and after finding out that they no longer enjoy the hobby decide to quit and since the button exist they (and maybe even longer paritipating members) will click it assuming that's even the prefered action in that situation. Could you please add some text to make it clear that this is the least prefered option for the community of participants and should only be choosen in exeptional cases. I see (to my disappointment) that the possibility to hide the found caches and the gallery is already used to an extent that is noteworthy. I wished also on that settings page it is made clear that (while possible to eventually comply with certain privacy laws) hiding this information are not the prefered settings in a community driven hobby/game.
  17. I don't want to believe that this is a necessary measure to comply with privacy laws but IANAL. It reads as if the logs are completely removed without any remains. Please, please leave at least the date and the logtype together with an "deleted_user" visible in the log history of all caches. Every user should have the right to delete certain, specific information she or he no longer wants to be accessible on the internet. But I disagree that deleting a big number of logs written with the explicit intention to be published and to be seen for all, just with the click of a button is in order.
  18. My first random pick of one of your caches. Well.... <SCNR>
  19. Thanks for looking into the issue. I was talking about the "Latest activity on your hides" which is the first shown page after clicking on "Cache owner dashboard" under the "Play" menu option on top. I see only one(!) log from 21st of August 2021 on my cache GC88Z1B I don't see any logs with a later date especially two DNF logs from March 2022 I was surprised not to see. But like barefootjeff I just figured that this August 2021 log was written as late as of 9th of April 2022 So I guess it will also vanish soon from that page since apparently only logs written within a couple of recent weeks are shown there. I wished in case of few logs they would not be removed so quickly and also that own logs are shown but it's not a pressing issue to me.
  20. Are there currently any issues with the Cache Owner Dashboard? I don't have many caches so I rarely look at it but currently the "Latest activity on your hides" only shows one rather old log from last year wheras I would expect at least a handfull of recent logs left on my caches within the last months. BTW what's the expected content anyway? Regarding the number of shown logs is it cut off by age or by a certain number of logs? Should it contain logs made by myself? PS: I still consider the visual presentation not good. If not in fullscreen mode I need to overly widen my browser window to have the full and small pictures on the right side instead of huge but cut off vertically below the log text.
  21. Leaving beside the other still valid complaints about the new list I have the following two visual suggestions: (1) please don't just grey out the colours of the icons of disabled and archived caches. It makes it difficult to identify the cache type and also if there's a smiley or frouney attached. Suggestion: Only dim or pale the colours. (2) please make it also easier to diffentiate between archived and disabled caches. In the old lists you had the names striked and the name of an archived cache additionally changed to red. Suggestion: Grey out the letters of the name of an archived cache and leave the disabled ones black.
  22. When searching as a BM as a list you get to see all PM caches including GC-code, distance, name, owner and number of favorite points. You even get to see as the first two caches in this list always two PM caches regardless of their distance just to make sure you are immediately reminded that you are missing something as a BM.
  23. Yes and also on the new dashboard I see that my friend has recently loged a certain cache and only when clicking on it I discover that it is a PM cache. I can't see why someone would make this speculation. What eventual additional information I would I get from such lists? No, the reason for excluding Basic Members from that information is IMNSHO purely pushing BMs to become PMs which regarding this very issue is extremely disappointing and this has nothing to do that I'm currently a BM. Take away any access to "convenience"-features of the webpage for BMs, no problem. But don't make it difficult and even impossible to find caches (and consequently logs) of users which you found out have simmilar taste regarding selection of caches or do write informative logs.
  24. Auch wieder wahr. Lieber ein bewährtes Modell bei dem sich die Firmware stabilisiert hat als das brandneueste Modell mit zu erwartenden Kinderkrankheiten. Mich irritiert nur sehr, dass Garmin weder das 700er weiterpflegt noch einen Nachfolger präsentiert. Darf man fragen warum du dir drei(!) 450 und ein 600er und ein 700er zugelegt hast? Ich hab jetzt mein 600er seit 8 Jahren und wenn sich nicht die USB-Buchse verabschieden würde und jetzt leider auch das Display einen Sprung bekommen hat, bräuchte ich mir keine Gedanken um eine neues Gerät machen. Aber ich hab zugegebenermassen auch den Vorgänger (Vista Cx) 8 Jahre lang hochzufrieden verwendet und nur unfreiwillig durch das O600 ersetzt.
  25. Ich würde mir auch gerne einen Nachfolger für mein O600 zulegen. Aber das 700er ist jetzt auch schon seit 6 Jahren auf dem Markt und wird nicht einmal mehr produziert. Nicht zuletzt weil auch die Preise für das 700er dermassen angezogen haben hält sich mein Kaufimpuls in Grenzen. Es schaut aber leider nicht danach aus, dass Garmin einen Oregon Nachfolger plant. Ich hätte kein Problem auf den Touchscreen zu verzichten aber mir hat einerseits der Formfaktor der GPSMAP 6x Serien mit den abstehenden Antennen noch nie zugesagt und scheitere auch jedesmal wenn ich versuche das für mich stimmigste der aktuellen Varianten (64/65/66) zu selektieren
×
×
  • Create New...