Jump to content

chaosmanor

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chaosmanor

  1. Probably because it wasn't fixed until very recently. It wasn't working an hour ago, as I type this. Thus, the fix is very new, for which I thank whoever took care of it! I am not having this issue: I just tried several of my Lists, of all types, and I was able to access them all. Perhaps this issue has also been fixed: you might give another try to opening your own Lists.
  2. The above does seem to help, some, but it really has nothing to do with the "Add to List" function in the upper right of every cache page. This particular link does not work. The only way in which I have been successful in adding a single cache to a List of mine is to open the List, and use the green "circled +" icon on the right edge of the grey bar near the top of that List. I am hopeful that being this detailed in my description of the issue will be efficacious in finding a remedy.
  3. I'd be thrilled if the stupid Route PQ creator worked in the first place. No matter which browser I use, I cannot get it to even set up a new Route, let alone edit an old one.
  4. This was never proposed, and that's not what the score system does. Just in case that's what you were thinking. If not, I don't think either that anyone was proposing that the bolded actually be implemented. Sounds good, except that the bolded is what has happened to each of the last few DNFs posted to our caches. In each case, it was the only DNF. It also has automatically posted on two DNFs which I posted over the past week or so. All I can do is react to what I see happening.
  5. OK, this thread has gotten ludicrously long, and also a bit off topic, in that most of the last several pages are two people sniping at each other. That's fine, but it isn't what this thread was originally intended to do, based on the first page or so, which were interesting to read. So. I am going to write one paragraph and leave it at that... If every DNF log is going to generate an automatic Needs Maintenance log from GCHQ, I'm going to pull and archive every single one of our caches, and will encourage others to do the same. A DNF may or may not mean that the cache is gone. Several of them probably does mean that it is gone. That being said, we have Found caches that had a string of several DNFs, once or twice more than a year long. We have also had several DNFs posted on our caches, and gone out to find the cache there and in good shape. I will not tolerate being told that I need to check on a cache just because of one DNF. And I will not just blow off all NM logs by posting fake Owner Maintenance logs just to clear out GCHQ corflu. This automatic "It might be missing" nonsense is 100% Bravo Sierra: it stinks and it is unnecessary. Sincerely, Jim, the other half of chaosmanor
  6. I have just one suggestion, which I don't think has come up yet: MAKE THE POP-UP BOX BIGGER. I have lists with longer titles than will fit in the currently-small box. There is no reason not to make it twice as big in both height and length, which would quadruple the area and make it a lot more functional. Thank you. P.S. I also agree with this comment by dprovan: "I intentionally name my lists so the ones I use more often are alphabetically near the top [or clustered around a common theme - my addition], so I'd appreciate the interface not intentionally defeating that."
  7. IMHO, a well-done multi of five steps is worth far more than five plain-vanilla traditionals. There is a small, but devoted, number of cachers out there who agree with me. If you are willing to accept that the bulk of cachers are into numbers more than experiences, but that those of us who appreciate experiences are worth attracting, then do the multi. You won't get as many logs, but I bet those logs that you do get will be a lot more interesting to read than a dozen TFTCs. Just my three-and-a-half cents
  8. It isn't working for me, either. I tried with Firefox and IE, and neither of them are working. I use Windows 7. There are likely lots of potential conflicts with various anti-malware programs and other things. To be honest, I really dislike the new Google Maps. Why is it that companies have to change things that work well, just for the sake of change?
  9. My sincere apologies for not following up on this. Family issues, amongst other things, completely blew this out of my mind. That being said... I reread your post and realized I could look up the cacher's log myself. You're in luck! Assuming the cacher is 411tracker who mentioned not receiving the souvenir, their log's GL code slots in during the time when hundreds of caches were being published for our annual cache-hiding event. That is, I was getting several publish emails each minute at the time they submitted their log, so I can get an extremely accurate date and time of their log submission. I can say with 100% certainty that 411tracker submitted log GLA6DWAB at either 8:50 or 8:51 am PST on February 2, 2013. They were almost 8 months too late to receive the souvenir automatically. If the cacher was Kyhoya1115, their log was submitted on either June 28 or 29, 2012, also too late to receive the souvenir automatically (assuming that period was 2 weeks). Like BlueDeuce, I'm a bit confused about what the controversy is. As the owner, you'd receive an email when they submitted their log, so you should already know exactly when they did so. By my calculations, both of the above cachers were too late to get the souvenir automatically, so they would need to email contact@geocaching.com to ask them to manually apply the souvenir. I'm curious why this wasn't suggested at the outset and how the discussion almost got to the point of "boiling over". From this end, it looks pretty cut-and-dried. There must be something the rest of us are missing. Thank you very much for this information! It is exactly what I was looking for 411tracker is the cacher in question, and I will now be able to explain to her why she didn't get her souvenir. As for the e-mail that I got of her Attended log, I don't keep every e-mail I get. Had I thought that an issue might be raised, I would have kept it. I will also suggest, again, that she e-mail contact@...
  10. Actually, it was made pretty clear that, for WWFM IX, one had to post an "Attended" log within two weeks in order to get the Souvenir for it. It is still posted on the WWFM website: http://www.gcwwfm.com/Resources/attendees I assume that this will be changed soon, as this rule is (I gather) not going to apply for WWFM X
  11. I have looked for a thread on this topic, and cannot find one. If one exists, sorry for the duplication; feel free to point me in the right direction. My question is this: is there a way to find the date and time of when a log is actually filed? I am not looking for the date of when the cache was Found; that's obvious. What I want is the actual date and time (or at least the date) of when the log was submitted. I have looked in the Page Source of logs, but cannot find anything that shows when the log was actually submitted. I am in "discussion" (trying hard to keep it from boiling over) with a cacher who attended last year's Flash Mob Event which we hosted. She did not get her Souvenir, and I know that she submitted her "Attended" log well after the cut-off, but I have not been able to find a way to prove it, and I am loathe to tell her to take it to Groundspeak. If I have no other option, that's fine, but I'm hoping to keep it from getting to that point.
  12. Well, that did it. Not sure *why* it worked, but I guess we don't need to know One thing that I did this time which I had not done earlier when I cleared my cache is I also cleared my browser history. I don't see how that could have been the issue, but maybe in combination with other things...
  13. Three times today. I'll try it again, and I'll clean my cache again, if only because one never knows. It just is amazing to me how easy it can be for something that worked fine a few hours ago can stop working for no obvious reason. And it is highly suspicious when mapping works everywhere but at one particular website. ~*sigh*~ this is how Luddites are born
  14. We caught the bug pretty early. We bought some of the early Canadian and Texas geocoins, which were trackable on their own website. A local group (Conejo Cachers, in Ventura County, CA), went in for a bunch of our own coins, which were trackable on a local website. When the things got a bit more "common", we jumped in heavily, and bought quite a few, trackable and non-trackable, as the designs were often clever and simple. Some were very colorful, others not, but they all meant something, either as personal coins, or regional, or whatever, and they almost all had something to do with geocaching. This is what I tend to call The Golden Age of Geocoins: roughly 2006-2009, maybe into 2010. Over the past 2-3 years, many of the designs have gotten highly intricate, and many of them have nothing to do with geocaching. We buy a few here and there, if the design or theme appeals to us, but I think we spent more on geocoins in 2008 than we have spent in total in 2011, 2012 and so far in 2013. Nowhere near as many of the designs catch our fancy. This isn't to say that they are "bad"; they just don't appeal to us. Thus, the geocoins which we tend to collect are ones which have a direct tie-in to geocaching. They can have other themes, but if there is no connection to our hobby/game/sport/obsession, then we are not nearly as likely to buy it, or trade for it.
  15. I am using W7, Home Premium, with Service Pack 1. I am using Firefox 19.0.2, which is the current version; this is my preferred browser. Yesterday, before the maintenance took place, I had no problems with the geocaching site while using Firefox. This morning, after booting up, none of the maps work on Firefox, nor am I able to correct coordinates on Mystery and other caches which allow it. AFAIK, I have done no changes to Firefox, although I did upgrade an audio driver last night. I have had no problems on other sites this morning. This includes mapping functions, such as Google Maps. I also am able to view maps on Internet Explorer and Safari, although I did not do an exhaustive test. Three questions: #1 - is there a chance that upgrading drivers can cause a browser to stop supporting certain website functions, or vice-versa? If so, how do I go about trying to find where the problem is? #2 - has anyone else reported (or merely had, without reporting) problems with Firefox after last night's maintenance? Thank you for any help/suggestions anyone might have
  16. E-mail sent. Can't believe that I've never seen a mention of the other eight, in the past
  17. Nothing wrong with that, really. At rock bottom, those who move Bugs *are* facilitators We have found that TB Hotels, in general, are the worst places to leave travelers, especially geocoins. Far too often, a Hotel with three or four travelers listed in it has none, or one. There are always exceptions, of course, especially along lonely highways and freeways, far from population centers. But in urban, or semi-urban areas, TB Hotels attract thieves, so we just don't leave any travelers in them. Far more preferable are caches on trails; they might sit longer, but they are far safer.
  18. Just keep trying number combinations until they hit on one that works. OK ... I even get THAT idea. But the early posters were complaining about multiple long-time missing bugs being discovered, apparently on the same day too. Try puching in random numbers and 'hitting' multiple trackables, all previously noted missing for some time. I think my chances of hitting the Pick-6 WITH a power ball ... without buying a ticket ... are better than hitting multiple random long lost trackables owned by the same geocacher. Go back to my original post, and what was going on should be clearer to you. The TBs of ours which had bogus discoveries were all Bugs from the old series of dog tags that only had numbers. If you type 123456 in the "Enter the Tracking Code of the Item:" box on the trackables search page, you will get a message on the next page which says that this number is not in the system. So, go back, and change the '6' to a '7' and try again. This will get really frustrating for you, as you will keep getting "Does Not Exist" messages, but eventually, you will hit pay dirt. Once you have a number that works, just keep adding '1' to the number which you know works, and keep going. I am *NOT* saying that anyone should do this sort of thing; I'm obviously very opposed to it, but knowing how this stuff is done is useful to helping prevent it, or at least correcting things when they affect you directly. Glad that some others who have had this happen to them have taken appropriate steps
  19. I'm going to add another vote-of-confidence to Germany and the Czech Republic, as well as to the Netherlands, the U.K, New Zealand and Australia. In fact, most of Europe seems to do very well; every once in a while, a traveler of ours goes missing in Europe, but most of them travel quite a bit. And we've had very good luck in The Antipodes; can't think of the last time a geocoin or TB "just vanished" Down Under. I also agree with Gitchee-Gummee about TBs tending to stay active longer than geocoins, but with the proliferation of "traveling tags", there is not as much of a difference, anymore, likely because the tags have distinct icons. And that's the bottom line: some people just cannot be happy with "merely" seeing an icon on their profile; they have a psychological need to own the item that has the icon. Thievery of intrinsically-valueless items (almost all travelers have little or no intrinsic value) is a mental defect: it's called kleptomania. I pity those who feel an unfightable urge to steal a geocoin: they are broken. I *do* think that G-G is incorrect about locale not mattering: different cultures have different ethical centers, and differing behavioral prohibitions and acceptances. There are always exceptions, of course, but there are strong trends which are well established.
  20. Yes I would. (snip) Have you ever? Many times. Every TB Hotel (or similar cache, with several travelers in it) that we see, I make a note of all the travelers, and post Notes or Discoveries saying that we saw it, but didn't move it for whatever reason: too many to move them all, knew we couldn't help with the mission, whatever. I did not make the rules about what counts for whatever; if we've never seen it before, I Discover it. But if we have already moved or Discovered the traveler, but come across it again later, I will *ALWAYS* post a Note; there is no reason to Discover a TB twice, or Discover one which we moved earlier. And it is not my fault if we get "credit" twice for moving a TB twice, with time in between the two moves.
  21. I remember that! That was pretty cool The thing is still traveling now, too; really glad you got that back on the road. But that isn't what I'm talking about; this was four TBs (another log came in a few minutes ago) of TBs which were all lost years ago, all many miles apart from each other. There is no way that one cacher is going to Find all four of those on the same day. Keystone: thanks for the info; I'm going to do that right now!
  22. I will make a point to drop-and-lift (some call it "dipping", but I dislike that term, as it has distasteful connotations) travelers that we have with us on trips and such, if we are unable to leave them in a cache. Sometimes we don't find enough caches big enough, or a larger cache is in a spot that we don't feel is safe enough to leave a traveler. Sometimes, a cache (particularly TB Hotels) have a reputation for things "disappearing" (i.e. they get stolen by caching ne'er-do-wells), so we just don't leave anything. Whatever the case, we feel it honorable to at least let the owners know that we tried. Plus, giving the travelers credit for the trip is a nice thing to do. It makes no difference how big the cache is; I try to use the one farthest from home. BTW: I don't do the serial "drop the TB or geocoin in every cache we visit" thing. A) it takes forever, B') it's too easy for me to forget one or more caches, and C) the owner never gets notice of "visits", only of "drop-offs" and "retrievals", so why waste all that time? I do it once, the owner gets an e-mail, the Bug or Coin gets some miles, and everyrone is happier, I hope
  23. So I'm sitting at the computer, going through the mountains of old e-mails, looking for stuff to delete. While I'm at it, new e-mails come in... "Hey! Someone Discovered a TB of ours that vanished more than six years ago! Cool Too bad they don't say where they saw it, but I can write to them about it. Hey, wait a second; here's another TB Discovery from the same people. And a third..." OK, you can see what the deal is. All three of these "Discoveries" were on TBs that had tags in the old six-digits, numbers-only series. The cachers (Mia&Jesper) started at 100000 or thereabouts, did a "discovery", added '1', did a discovery on *that* TB, and so on. The three e-mails came in numerical order, based on the tag IDs. As the three TBs in question had vanished hundreds of kilometers apart from each other, there was no way any of the "Discoveries" was legitimate, so I deleted the logs. If these folks are trying to qualify for a challenge cache or something, they can do it the right way. If they were looking at all of the different TBs over the past decade, that's cool, but Discoveries of TB pages is, for me, like claiming a Find on a cache you didn't get to. So, don't be surprised if you get an e-mail that says that Mia&Jesper "Discovered" a TB of yours that vanished long ago. I would suggest deleting the log, unless it has some real details that sound legitimate. But it's really up to you. I just don't think making things easier for the cheaters and rule-benders helps any of us: that's my three-and-a-half cents.
  24. Same here There could not have been very many of them, for them to have run out so quickly. "The Racketeer" geocoins were available for many days.
  25. I realize that this thread is more than two years old, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to respond to this particular point... Lucky you PaRacers! If you don't mind me asking, what kind of plastic case did they come in? Thanks, pasha I believe they're called "proof cases" they're round, made of hard clear plastic and completely enclose the coins They are also known as capsules but I would get your coins out of them asap as they are probably poor quality ones that will do your coins more harm than good (aka chemical fumes) We just picked up a geocoin produced by this company. It was in the proof case, and is in pretty good condition, all things considered. There is no readily-noticeable tarnish on the reverse, although there does appear to be a soft patina which one would except from most metals used in minting of any sort. The coin is dated 2010, so it's been in this case for two-years-plus; thus, it seems likely that one need not worry about the quality of the plastic used. There will always be exceptions, of course; nothing that is mass-produced is ever perfect.
×
×
  • Create New...