Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GrizzlyJohn

  1. I think when I think of a discussion I think of something that is a living thing. Something that evolves, changes, adapts. And that is excatly what happened with the CB thread. Although it would seem that some people did not like what it turned into. Too bad, don't read it. We were presented with an issue. Then there was some discussion on what the actual problem was or if there was a problem. Then we heard there may have been an answer. OK some people did not like that answer and thought to discuss what could be done about it. Others thought some of the ideas presented were not good ones and discussion about that should stop and called all of that off topic. It was a natural progression of the discussion. It was on topic. And saying you don't think it was does not make it so. It just means we disagree about that. But no other forum rules were broken as far as I could tell. Then let the discussion go. When people don't want to talk about it will drop to the next page. Again what do you care, don't read it. Oh that's right I forget that some people think that most of us can't make decisions for ourselves so they have to go the nanny route and get somebody to do something about it. If I am reading some of the prior posts correct then when a question is asked and answered then everything after that is off topic. Really? What if one asks can a certain item do some particular task. The answer is no. But then people start to give other options, ways to do it, or maybe even suggesting that we as geocachers contact the company making the item and explain how many geocachers use their item and that it might be something for them to consider. Is that off topic? The OP only asked if something could be done with a particular item. They did not ask for any suggestions. It is a hazy line for sure, but again as long as other forum rules are being followed what is the problem? I guess it really depends if you agree with the suggestions or not. There was some off topic discussion, no doubt about it. But the closing of the topic did not happen until almost all discussion was based on what to do about it. And also if anything was being done by gc.com, Michael's posting was really not clear that he was going to do anything about it other than let us know if he got more information. This was after there was an answer from CB.
  2. You should contact them. Tell them you won't be doing business with them and why. Tell them what business you have done with them that will now be going elsewhere. They need to know that. If they don't hear anything about it they will assume they have made a great decision. If there really are the numbers of people that geocache who are upset and make it known to CB they may come to understand the ramifications of their policy change. Let the local store owners know as well. They are the ones that will feel it the most. Take geocaching out of the mix. If any company that you have be doing business with made a change in a policy that you disliked so much that you would no longer do business with them, won't you let them know? This is no different. On the other hand it may not really matter to them. But that tells you something as well. What are they going to do ... not allow any more caches to be placed there? I have never done an OYR cache but I have eaten at CB. Just as it is their choice to make this policy I have plenty of options of where I can do business. CB has removed themselves from consideration.
  3. You may want to try in the Geocaching by Region/State sections of the forum. Errr ... I see you are in Canada, there is a section for that to just a little further down.
  4. Businesses go out of business all the time. The deal was offered. Basic services would always be free. And premium as stated above. So many here will be very quick to note that is it TPTB business and they get to run it how they wish. So let them. They made the offer and I accepted, I expect them to stick by it. Do you allow people that you have a contract with to just change the rates? If so then we really need to do some business. But as many have pointed out here, it does not seem that the question is based on any kind of possibility of "if it came down to it" so I guess all of the answers have the same amount of usefulness as the question.
  5. I would say I would be happy paying what I am paying now. That was the deal: "... you will always be locked in at the current rate as long as you continue to renew."
  6. Hmmm .... Jeremy going on the forums of some company and asking that they change how they do things because it would work better for some segment of users. And then just getting blown off or ignored. How friggin' ironic. There are probably a bunch of people on those forums asking why would you want to do it that way. And another group saying here is a convoluted work around you can do. And maybe another group who just say TPTB have spoken, if you don't like it then leave.
  7. Well even after Presidents, Senators, Judges, etc. leave office they are generally still refered to by the title of the office. Or at least "The Honorable"
  8. These are the things that just make me shake my head. Do you find that level of service acceptable with every other entity you do business with? The example I have used in the past is the newspaper. I have a subscription to it. I pay the money and they tell me they will give me a paper everyday. I don't read it everyday but that is my business. What I do with it when I get is up to me. But they still better deliver it. I would not be happy if they would not deliver my paper because one day they ran out of ink, or the presses were just not fast enough that day, or the person delivering it just ran out of time, or the writers just could not get it together enough to type out an article. If you really find those kinds of things acceptable I have a huge list of goods and services I can be selling to you. All at amazing prices.
  9. The problem is that many of the things some consider rules are just guidelines and are not really as cut and dried as they seem. For example AFAIK if I want to bury a cache on my property I can. So to say that buried caches are not allowed is really not correct. But most people would say they are not allowed. This just goes back to the point that it really is all about common sense. What may work for most cases really can not always apply for every case. Here is another example the .1 of a mile rule. That is not really a rule either. If you have on cache that is at the top of a cliff and another that is at the bottom of the cliff they may not appear to be more than .1 of a mile away. But I think if you explain it to a reviewer they will get it and both will be approved. Again you really just need to get over this desire for more control. People will do what they want and you can only do so much to guide them. Again most of what you are talking about are guidelines not rules. If they don't want to follow rules or guidelines then proving they know them will not change anything. It is up to the reviewers and finders of the caches to keep up on what should and should not be allowed based on their judgement of what they see after actually visiting the cache. Having knowledge of the rules does not in any way shape or form mean a person will follow them. I just don't understand why that is so hard to understand. And this is not the only site. There may be sites out there that have no guidelines or rules. What would you do about them? They may not be geocaching.com but they are part of the hobby/sport/pastime of geocaching. And if more layers of nonsense are added to allowing people to post caches here those types of sites will start to see more traffic. I just see so much of this as being nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to a problem that has been a very small percentage of the whole. Maybe all of this effort would be better spent teaching emergency responders about geocaching. From most accounts it would seem that the outcome has been very different if the agency that came upon something was aware of geocaching.
  10. The angst in that post is pretty ironic, considering you participated in the off-topicness (and because the topic that you wish to drive the conversation back to is not the topic of this thread). If I could somehow move Jeremy's post and the subsequent ideas to a new thread I would. Because I can't I figured we could continue with the subject here. Is there some problem with doing that? Again....Can we please end this BS and get back submitting ideas for questions? You started this thead asking what people thought of a waiting period. It has since gone off topic and you seem to be encouraging that by saying that anything other than ideas for questions is off topic. Then when people respond that they don't think either your original point or other ideas since then are good you ask to have the topic closed? Not thinking it is a good idea is part of the discussion.
  11. I am surprised to not see any of the usual suspects who like to complain about people not following the rules. This cache contains a lighter and storm matches.You know some kid could head on up Everest find this cache with a lighter in it and start all kinds of trouble. I guess they are all hiding out under bridges.
  12. Well if you are going to force hiders to answer questions before hiding then maybe you should force seekers down the same road. If in fact one of the real concerns is with the damage this hobby does to its surroundings as well as how it is seen through the eyes of those how don't know or care about geocaching then both sides of the activity can cause problems. And if hiders are made to answer a set of questions each time before they place a cache then each time before an entry can be created they should have to answer questions as well. I think that should start to annoy people real fast. Look if people are going to want to do stupid things they will do them. I just seeing adding another set of hoops to jump through as just that and will do nothing to correct any of the problems people think may exist. We are all well aware of the various traffic laws and are even reminded of things like speed limits pretty regularly but that does not make many of us to even have a second thought about breaking some of those laws. You can't fix stupid!
  13. All of this talk about waiting periods etc. got me to thinking about one cache that was place a few years back. It was buried, had food in it, maybe even other items that are not allowed. I don't think he had permission to place it. Not one of the safest places to park to go find it. Not really much of a view. You get the idea, a cache that after finding a few most people would know better than to place. It was placed by a total noob. It was his first hide and he hid it without even finding any other caches. I was not caching then but my understanding is that it caused a stir. The cacher does not come around here too often and I don't think he even really caches that much anymore. What was his name .... oh yeah ... Dave Ulmer. I guess we all live and learn.
  14. Well please do something about it. Everytime I search I keep getting that same archived cache in New Jersey.
  15. Or how about they just not display a finds count page anymore? That will do away with this and all of the other dumb discussions that swirl around the number of finds, getting all of the different types of icons, and all the rest that seem to come up weekly.
  16. I don't think that will work unless the person is logged in.
  17. I think I understand your point but I don't know if this would actually have any better chance of getting past filters. I thought I understood at least in the case of AOL that they had the throttle set for email coming from gc.com and others as well. So it really was not so much the content but the amount. Maybe I misunderstood.
  18. Yeah OK what the guy with the faster typing fingers said. And he numbered it.
  19. Go to My Controls. On the menu list on the left under the Options heading you should see a link that says "Manage Ignored Users". Click that. I have never used it but it seems pretty straight forward.
  20. I am not really one to defend gc.com on this topic but there was this posting. I think the frustration may be coming from the fact that this has been an ongoing problem for a very long time. All we have seen is really minor adjustments that don't stand the test of time. It really has taken forever for TPTB to see the site does not scale and they don't have the skills to fix it themselves. Should have happened a long time ago.
  21. Has anyone else experience this error? It seems less a site down error and more of a network issue. I checked the logs and the site seemed to be fine during the night. Thanks! Oddly enough this may not be your problem. It may be a client side problem. If it is it will be a female dog to track down because it can be really intermittent. This can occur if the client is coming through networks that start adding headers to the packets. Then the packets become too large for a router or server to handle and the packets fragment. Then your server may have problems dealing with those fragmented packets. But at some later point the route between client and server may change and it is not a problem at all. So the error message looks sort of like that server busy error, but I think what is really happening is it is trying to pull the packets together that was sent to it. While it is waiting and trying to do this it times out and it looks like the server is busy and can't reply to the request. On the client side a possible fix is to change the MTU (maxium transmission units) setting. But that is a little dicey because it is a bit of a balancing act. Setting it to high and it makes the problem worse, to low and you will be sending too many packets and your response will slow to a crawl and the server will also seem nonresponsive. I would not recommend anyone mess with that unless you really know what you are doing. But I don't know I am just taking a guess here.
  22. Not a problem, glad you got it worked out.
  23. It has been months since I have visited the forums, I see not much has changed. I find it very wrong to just switch off the running of my PQ. It does not matter if I am using it or not I should not have to come back to say I want to keep getting it. I have paid a subscription. Let's say I pay to get the paper delivered to my house everyday. It is of no concern to the newspaper if I am reading it or not. And I don't have to keep going back to the newspaper to tell them that I wish to continue to get the paper delivered, other than I need to keep paying my bill. Maybe I throw the paper away everyday without looking at it. But from time to time perhaps I do want to update my knowledgebase on current events. That is my business. I have paid for it I get to use it or not use it how I see fit. If the newpaper can't deliver my paper in a timely manner it is their problem to fix. Get more newspaper boys, get faster presses, stop taking subscriptions to get to the level of what they are able to deliver. But they don't get to slip an article in the sports section that says I have to call the office to tell them I want to continue to get my paper delivered while at the same time they keep sending me a bill.
  • Create New...