Jump to content

marcelteun

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by marcelteun

  1. 51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

     

    The algorithm treated everyone equally by a set of criteria Groundspeak defined,

     

    You are repeating this, and I replied already on this. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly to you. Equal chances doesn't necessarily mean fairness, please see my previous comparison. You hinted that the comparison was not valid, but without arguments. Instead you give the same argument I reacted on.

     

    46 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

    I would argue that you DID have access to the "rules"  

    Please refer to them, i.e. where was it stated that these rules will be applied in the future to decide who will be able to create a new virtual cache.

  2. 4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    There is such a thing as a false analogy.

    Yes there is,... I guess you mean to say it was a false analogy. Please argue. My point is that if you have the same chance, it doesn't necessarily mean it is fair. But as I said before, I think a lottery would have been fairer than this.

    5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    (btw "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" isn't a comparison, but let's not get into grammar in the geocaching forum)

     

    Yes it is: the relation between apple, tree and distance is compared to parent, kid, behaviour / looks. 

  3. 2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    It's not a trial. There's no court room. No one did anything wrong. No one was judged individually.

    Do you know the concept of a comparison?

    Here is another one: if someone says "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" Will you say: I am not an apple?

     

  4. 52 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    Everyone had a "fair chance", since the day they began geocaching. And, if we'd known beforehand, people would have 'played the system' to try to earn the right. Guaranteed. If this was about selecting based on a criteria analyzing general geocaching activity, telling people about it would have spoiled the samples, as it were.

     

    One more time the comparison: Person A goes to trial and person B goes to trial. Both a judged by the same rules, however they don't know the rules. Person A had good arguments, person B too. Only A is freed. The problem was that B wasn't dressed well, which is part of the rules for showing respect to the court. Because of this lack of respect and the fact that the rules stated that someone who shows no respect for the court will be found guilty. No could say that both had the same chance, so the trial was fair. But I would argue that they didn't have a fair chance.

  5. 3 minutes ago, igator210 said:

    Not just here, but I'm seeing a lot of people that are butt hurt that they didn't fall within the algorithm. Can't people just people happy that new Virtuals are on the way?

    No I am disappointed because I didn't have a fair chance. That since it was unknown what was going on and what rules applied. Overall I am happy with new virtual caches.

  6. 2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    Except they're not parents. They're a private company.

     

    Everything I've concluded has been from what they have said, so no assertions which aren't logical conclusions or haven't been disclaimed as such. Yet somehow we have different opinions about fairness.

    Did you understand the point I was making? It was a comparison, not an equation: you didn't win, you got a reward. You are not being punished, this is a consequence. My whole point about this: you can twist the words as you like: I miss the fact that I didn't have a fair chance, since I didn't know what was going on and what rules would apply.

    Even a lottery to which people could have applied would have been fairer, since at least then you know on the fore-hand. But I guess HQ wanted to make sure about a certain quality when these virtual caches are going to be reviewed, but even for that there are other ideas (as I wrote some of them before)

  7. 36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    There's no "winning". No one competed for this.

    ..

    Everyone had a "fair chance", since the day they began geocaching

    It is like a parent is saying: you are not punished, this is a consequence,... That is why there was no warning. In nature there aren't any warnings, but nature isn't fair either. In a fair situation you get to know the rules that are applied before they are applied. It is like going to court to defend yourself without knowing the rules. A is freed, B isn't. But had the same fair chance you could argue. I would argue they didn't.

     

  8. 24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

    I'm not seeing where Geocaching HQ said that.  Rather, the blog post and the opening post of this thread make it very clear that many, many fine cache owners did not receive a virtual reward simply because of the 4,000 cache cut-off point.  There could have been 3,000, there could have been 6,000. 

    The day I'm put in a position of deciding whose baby is cute and whose baby is ugly is the day I resign as a Community Volunteer Reviewer.  There should be no subjectivity in deciding whether or not to publish a cache.  The old "wow factor" test was needed in order to weed out those ugly babies, and it led to incredible grief - and ultimately, the end of new virtual caches in 2005.

    Well, that was one suggestion where at least anyone had a chance. One could just let the reviewer decide the first X number of ideas that come in and that won't lead to any of the problems with classical virtual geocaches. My biggest point of disappointment is that not everyone had a fair chance.

    That said: I am still happy that more virtual caches will be created!

  9. 5 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

    (As I've yet to hide a cache in this hobby, it would be absurd for me to have been given one). Yet, I sure as heck don't feel like I "lost".

    Since you don't want to hide, I understand that you don't feel you lost anything. But someone who has a great idea for a vritual cache, and lives in an area that isn't suited for (m)any other type of caches, never had any chance. That is unfair.

  10. 10 hours ago, The three ts said:

    I'm so excited for this new Virtual Rewards opportunity. I won a virtual myself, but don't know too much about them. I'm wondering if I could have any input on good ideas on making a virtual that will rack up the favorites and will make my opportunity worth while.

    Thanks so much!

    HQ wrote: "it created significant problems for reviewers and often led to poor cache quality. " I guess that is why they used a certain algorithm to prevent getting the same problems again. It seems that making beautiful interesting geocaches of the other types doesn't guarantee that means that the CO knows how to prevent problems when creating a virtual geocache. 

    I understand you are excited: I am happy for you and I hope you will get a brilliant idea and many FP!

  11. Though I am positive about allowing some virtual caches to be published, I am disappointed about the way the community is divided into two classes this way. Suddenly, out of the blue HQ decides: you are the top class, you are not. I thought geocaching was for fun, and there was no need for competition, but apparently there was a competition, though we didn't know about this. Apparently one percent of the geocache hiders won, and according to HQ the other 99% of the cache hiders cannot do this properly and and are second class geocache hiders. Apparently a Translator or Forum Modulator know how to create an interesting virtual geocache that follows the guide lines, but other volunteers don't.

    I am mainly disappointed because: I never had a fair chance! We didn't know this was coming. We didn't know what requirements would be taken into account. And if we would have known, one wouldn't have had the time to do something about it either.

    I can imagine another way: every one who wants to hide one gets the time (i.e. until a certain date) to prepare a virtual geocache and puts this in a special queue, where the CO is hidden from the reviewer. The reviewers of a certain region pick the top of those (most interesting, follow the guide lines and are ready to be published) and the other are rejected. This way every one gets a fair chance. Limiting the time will keep the amount of virtual caches down. The reviewing process will be short, since the ones that need more work will not be chosen.

    Once again: I will be happy that a virtual cache might show up in my neighbourhood, but I am disappointed in how this was decided and how this was implemented, by suddenly dividing the community into two classes. Most of the second class geocache hiders didn't have any chance.

    • Upvote 6
  12. I played a bit with this (by removing old logs and writing new ones, since it doesn't work for the edit function)

     

    I noticed that for some friends the tag is turned into a link, but for another this wasn't done. Why not?

     

    It seems that it had to do with the way I wrote it (@friend1, @friend2, @friend3 )

    Note that i all three cases the list appeared and I selected the name from the list, but for friend1, no link appeared (I didn't check with him whether he received a message)

  13. Thanks for the feedback! Here's some information to answer some of your questions.

     

    • There are no current plans to add mentions to the edit log page. This may change in the future, but is not in high priority.

     

    I am surprised. I would expect that the edit and the log functions already share a lot of code, in fact I would expect that if you update the log function (say you fix a bug) that you don't have to think about updating the same thing in the edit function. In that case it could be even so that adding this to the log function would have added this automatically for the edit function, otherwise it shouldn't be a lot of effort (if you designed the site well).

     

    Tagging could be used for all kinds of things, not just notifying friends with whom you logged caches with. But I think it could have been a good idea to have the tagging separate from the log itself. In that case you can add a tag to someone else's log (e.g. if you think it is a funny log and you think some friend should read it too)

  14. I have the same problem. I have enough FP to share (11) but I cannot give a any favorite point to a cache I just logged. I get the exact same behaviour. First it seems to work and the FP is increased (to 10), but after a refreshing the page, the counter is back to 9. I even tried adding a new log (though that log was a note, not a found).

     

    Having this problem today. Tried to favorite a find I logged last weekend and it adds it, but when I refresh the page its gone. Tried adding a note and checked the favorite box and it still didn't take. Tried different browsers too, no change. But before this happened I added a favorite to a cache I found today while logging it without any issues.

  15. Hi Fnparrotts

     

    I don't know why I succeeded in the end, but I must say, compared to my previous eTrex 30 with old FW, I must say that the compass is really, really stable. I am glad that I didn't give up. Once again I not sure why I succeeded. I moved to the wooden deck, where there were no electronics in the neighbourhood and no other metal objects and ended up in a mode doing this many times. I cannot say I did something special when I succeeded in the end, but I did. The only thing I can say: don't give up! And let us know how it went.

  16. I wondered that as well and read through the FW upgrade list:

    From 2.80 to 2.90 it says:

    "Improved accuracy of compass calibration on eTrex 30 devices. A new manual compass calibration is required (Setup > Heading > Calibrate Compass)."

     

    I guess this has been a problem since 2.90. I know that the first poster writes it si a problem since upgrading to 3.20, but this person didn't tell from which version he upgraded. In the release notes nothing is mentioned about fixing the calibrating process since then, though I understand that not everything might be mentioned in the release notes.

     

    Btw some people mentioned that you should do a master reset first. I didn't do this, I assumed that this wasn't needed since I have a new GPS anyway. Calibrating the GPS was the first thing after changing the the battery type to Lithium, since I inserted (new) ones of that type. I posted my story just to share my experiences for other who are having problems, to state that it is still a problem in 3.70. And that I needed a very long time, while sitting on a deck: an environment made of wood, nothing magnetic there.

  17. I bought a new etrex 30, because I lost my previous one. FW version 3.70. I had major troubles with calibrating the compass. "take it slow and persevere" I read. Well, the latter was needed indeed. About the former, I am not so sure. It took me more than 50 tries. I sat there at least half an hour on the deck.

     

    I tried taking 10 secs about the third step, it didn't help. I took out the batteries, I was hopeless that I even tried to rotate the opposite direction. I suspect, when I finally succeeded I might have been more stable with no sudden movements, but the fact is that I don't know why I succeeded in the end. I think it is a shame. Garmin should really fix this. This is absolutely not user friendly. I am still not sure whether to send back my Garmin again. What a disappointment!

  18. I bought a new etrex 30, because I lost my previous one. FW version 3.70. I had major troubles with calibrating the compass. "take it slow and persevere" I read. Well, the latter was needed indeed. About the former, I am not so sure. It took me more than 50 tries. I sat there at least half an hour on the deck.

     

    I tried taking 10 secs about the third step, it didn't help. I took out the batteries, I was hopeless that I even tried to rotate the opposite direction. I suspect, when I finally succeeded I might have been more stable with no sudden movements, but the fact is that I don't know why I succeeded in the end. I think it is a shame. Garmin should really fix this. This is absolutely not user friendly. I am still not sure whether to send back my Garmin again. What a disappointment!

  19. I played around with Groundspeak's site. I think it was supposed to display the location information when you cleared the play anywhere check box. Since it doesn't, you can't switch it from play anywhere. It got like this at first, I think, because your cartridge's source code defined its starting location as play anywhere. I tried uploading a new play anywhere cartridge, then tried to upload a new GWZ version that uses defined coordinates. The site does not pick up on this. So, the only option left for you is to start the cartridge upload process again and just use that second listing.

    .

    .

    If I can't even persuade Groundspeak to fix the completion code, I doubt you'll see a fix for this more involved problem.

     

    Hi Ranger Fox. I guess I will leave this the way it is, since by now I have 2 completions. I will make a remark about this in the text. It is not a big problem and while looking at other modules, I noticed that many other have it like this. I will double check before uploading my next Wherigo cartridge next time. Thanks for your answer, and thanks for testing this.

×
×
  • Create New...